https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezaSt0IPrIk
what if germany won WW1 and never caused WW2?
would the world be a better place?
This actually seems to be not a bad scenario.
The thing I always get triggered by is people calling Germany the "bad guys" because they don't understand that Nazi Germany didn't exist in WW1.
WW2 was not "nazislap 2: electric boogaloo" but it was a far different war with much less "moral" shit to fight for/against.
Can't speak as to what would happen if they'd won. We'd all have cooler helmets, I guess.
Well that depends. What kind of peace treaty would it have resulted in? Germany wanted colonies, so I assume France wouldn't have been fractured too hard, just lost shitloads of African holdings. Assuming that would be the end of it and no WWII happens, would the colonial powers manage to keep hold of said colonies or would they break free anyway?
>>1244092
i dont know anybody who thinks that even historical morons tend to know germany wasnt the bad guys in ww1.
>>1244092
>We'd all have cooler helmets, I guess.
That's good enough to me.
>>1244374
You'd be surprised. Lots of people still attach a negative label to Germany in WW1 as if they were "evil" then in the same way the nazis were "evil."
Though, anyone who says "good guys" and "bad guys" in relation to history in generally not worth listening to.
>>1244028
Huey Long did literally nothing wrong
gas the syndies, Second Civil War now
>>1244389
ah fuck i wanna rant here. I was in history class when i was about 14. We were doing a skim over WW1 and my friend asked out teacher "So you know the Nazi's were bad..." Then my cunt muncher of a teacher cuts him off and goes super intense (btw he was 6'6 and) stood over my friend and said "yes, they destroyed 6 million jews, raped and pillaged their ways across the Russian and Polish lands, they burned homes, killed families and destroyed the economies of entire nations. They brought humanity to their lowest point in history, yes the Nazi's were bad". The whole class was just like wtf, cause out teacher got right up in my friend face about it, then he went onto ask if the ww1 germans were as bad and our teacher gave a really vague stupid answer. That teacher pissed my off so much
>>1244028
>We have no idea what the Germans would have done if they actually won the war
The German war goals of Mittelafrika and Mitteleuropa were a thing you know
>>1244658
>raped and pillaged their ways across the Russian and Polish lands, they burned homes, killed families and destroyed the economies of entire nations
That was the Russians though. Not even the jewish run hollywood media that loves to spend every breathing moment demonising your regular soldier of the third reich spews shit like this.
>>1244389
>"good guys" and "bad guys" in relation to history
literally every normie
>>1244028
I actually think the most intresting thing would be deolonization in this world. Assuming ww2 doesn´t happen or isn´t as devastating decolonization probably would be more orderly.
>>1244028
If Germany won WW1 not only would Russia be communist, but Britain probably would have became communist as well.
Then eventually the world would have gotten gangbanged by Anglo-Russian meddling until the entire planet was communist.
So yeah it would be a better place.
>>1245196
Wat. Just because it happens in kaiserreich it isn´t remotely realistic.
>>1245018
>That was the Russians though
OK
>Not even the jewish run blah blah blah
Should have guessed it was a stormfag.
>>1245212
No, I'd say it would happen because the communist movement in Britain around WW1 was absolutely massive, and if the state dealt a serious blow it's not unlikely there would be a larger uprising.
Had they not won WW1 and gotten the opportunity to consider some more liberal reforms with a stable empire it would have been much harder to keep a lid on it.
>>1245224
Unlike russia there was a moderate party for the disentfranchised to rally around. Mensheviki and other russian parties failed because the democratic parties were some ivory-tower-type elitists with no connection to the populace. In Britain we probanly would have more socialist influence and vultures stealing their colonial empire.
Also a victorious germany probably could and would stop at least the UDSSR in its tracks. Ukraine and the baltic states were a german sphere of interest.
>>1244397
Kaiserreich best reich
>>1245196
More likely France
>>1244092
>The thing I always get triggered by is people calling Germany the "bad guys" because they don't understand that Nazi Germany didn't exist in WW1.
The semi-absolutist empire did exist however, and was more than willing to egg Austria into a war. Remember that it was Kaiser Wilhelm leading Germany at the time, the half-cripple with a massive inferiority complex that he could only satisfy with the blood of millions. And the punishment he got for that was the equivalent of a luxurious retirement in the Netherlands.
>>1245141
History is not for normies and I'm glad they hate it to be honest.
>>1245541
>and was more than willing to egg Austria into a war
You're forgetting the factors of France and Russia which forced Wilhelm into a preemptive war
>>1245584
>You're forgetting the factors of France and Russia which forced Wilhelm into a preemptive war
Which were? Those only came into question after Wilhelm egged Austria into war by giving them a carte-blanche guarantee, rather than taking on a mediary role for a peaceful solution. They knew the Austrians wanted little more than to wreck Serbia's shit, and backed them all the way. France only became a problem after Russia was thoroughly provoked with the threat of an invasion of Serbia.
And even then France was horribly unprepared, as evidenced by the fact that the defenses in Verdun were disarmed earlier that year (if they hadn't, the battle of Verdun would be a lot less bloody). Oh, and we're also forgetting that little thing called the Rape of Belgium.
If WW1 had bad guys, they were the Germans. And let's not forget their genocidal Turkish allies, with whom the Germans had an affair ever since, continuing to this very day.
>>1245604
>Wilhelm egged Austria into war by giving them a carte-blanche guarantee
Poincaré gave Russia the literal assurance that they'd back them even if it came to war. Certainly that didn't serve the purpose of making Russia reconsider going to war. Neither France nor Russia are innocent here. Russia stuck her nose in the backyard of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and France backed them in their meddling knowing all too well that this could lead to war.
>They knew the Austrians wanted little more than to wreck Serbia's shit, and backed them all the way.
Serbia was a rogue state and it was their good right to wreck their shit. They were a European great power, humiliated by terrorist haven in their immediate vicinity. Imagine how the US would react if the Cartels in Mexico had the president killed. They'd reach the conclusion that Mexico is unable to handle the situation on their own and take care of things.
>>1244092
>invade neutral Belgium to invade France
>not the bad guys
>>1245848
>Poincaré gave Russia the literal assurance that they'd back them even if it came to war
>Prior to Austria's ultimatum
Let's see the difference between France's guarantee and that of Germany. France affirmed a defensive alliance. Germany offered a carte-blanche guarantee for war. Do you see the difference yet?
>Serbia was a rogue state and it was their good right to wreck their shit.
Based on... what?
>Imagine how the US would react if the Cartels in Mexico had the president killed. They'd reach the conclusion that Mexico is unable to handle the situation on their own and take care of things.
You know America is a country with a long history of unjustified invasions, right? Your example would be unjustified under various UN Treaties. Now let's imagine that situation of yours playing out in a world where somehow France, Britain, Russia and China had all allied with Mexico and claimed that if America declared war on Mexico, they'd come to Mexico's aid. Would they share guilt for America deciding to declare war on Mexico anyway?
The Austrians wanted war, they wanted to humiliate Serbia. The Germans were itching for an excuse to push Russia's and France's shit in Belgium happened to be in the way, but the Germans never had any moral qualms about inflicting innocent casualties on neutral parties.
>>1245604
> rather than taking on a mediary role for a peaceful solution
Wilhelm thought the Serbian response to the ultimatum was "incredible" and "everything [the Austrians] could have hoped for" and wanted Austrians to accept it. Wilhelm never actually wanted war, he tended to be somewhat extravagant & chauvinistic in his manner & speech, but it was something of a show he put on, IIRC Wilhelm earnestly lobbied for peace within his own government but was urged by Moltke that war was their only opinion. Even Bethmann-Hollweg the German chancellor wanted more time for mediation, but the army pretty much gave an ultimatum that 'if Germany wasn't given authorization to mobilize ASAP the nation would be ruined'.
>>1245871
The Brits didn't seem to care that much about muh holy neutrality in WWII anymore either
>>1245913
>France affirmed a defensive alliance.
Is that so? Were Austria and Germany going to invade France or Russia? No, they only had business with Serbia. France was willingly backing Russia in their Imperialistic meddling at the Balkans. Had they had an interest in peace, they would have not messed with Austria-Hungary in what was their good right - restoring peace in their periphery.
>Your example would be unjustified under various UN Treaties.
They would make sure it's justified or invade either way.
>Would they share guilt for America deciding to declare war on Mexico anyway?
Yes, they would. And they would be smart enough not to back Mexico and let America do as she pleases because they'd know that an Empire would never let a humiliation like this go unavenged and tolerate terrorist activity in their direct vicinity.
>>1245913
>France affirmed a defensive alliance. Germany offered a carte-blanche guarantee for war.
Germany backed Austria against an involvement of Russia. France backed Russia against an involvement of Germany (following Russia's involvement). Those two blanque cheques are fairly similar in nature in my view.
>>1245604
>Rape of Belgium
It should be mentioned that Belgian civilians were waging an illegal partisan war and that hostage killings were seen as a legal repression measure during war time by many people back then.
>>1244028
get the fuck outta here cody
>>1244092
Lad. Germany was an authoritarian, anti-democratic absolutist state before WW1 (or at least Willy really tried his hardest for it to be) that started a world war for nothing other than greed and personal glory.
Plenty of people back then thought they were the "bad guys" as they rightfully do still today.
>>1247161
So just like Russia.
>non-democratic states are the baddies out of purely for being non-democratic
Fuck off, retard.
>>1245953
... except the French backed a defensive alliance, and when things heated up, straight up told Russia not to do anything that would lead to war.
Can you spot the differences between the above and the German-Austrian dynamic?
>>1247179
>non-democratic states are the baddies out of purely for being non-democratic
/pol/tard please learn to read. It seems like you just read half of my post and stopped there.
>>1247382
They didn't start a war. They backed an empire in its containment of a terrorist state that was a direct threat to said empire. Your /leftypol/ delusions are hilarious.
>>1247483
You idiot. Austria deliberately gave an absurd ultimatum to Serbia to provoke war with Russia and France, thinking that Germany's Schleiffen was so ebin flawless it would guarantee victory in 3 months.
Both Germany and Austria knew what they were getting into and they jumped head first into it because they were so arrogant that they both thought they could take on half the world and come out the better for it.
Please read a book and stop eating up Germaboo propaganda.
>>1245934
>Were Austria and Germany going to invade France or Russia? No, they only had business with Serbia.
Germans helped Austrians with Serbia in late 1915. For one and half of a year they've did something else... what was it? Oh, I know. They invaded France.
>>1247598
Are you literally retarded?
Germany invaded France because Russia mobilised and the French refused to declare themselves neutral. If Russia decided not to mess with Austria-Hungary right in their backyard and the French didn't back them in their imperialistic games to get back at Germany, then there wouldn't have been a WW1.
>>1247161
Germany was a lot more democratic than Russia was.
>>1247185
>the French backed a defensive alliance, and when things heated up
How is this different from Germany vowing to protect Austria-Hungary in case Russia intervenes?
>>1247580
>Austria deliberately gave an absurd ultimatum to Serbia to provoke war with Russia and France
Utter nonsense.
>thinking that Germany's Schleiffen was so ebin flawless it would guarantee victory in 3 months.
Germany was ill-prepared for a war and Germany feared nothing more than a two-fronts war against France and Russia. However, they wouldn't let themselves get bullied into submission and give up on their only remaining ally on the continent.
>>1244028
hans here.
"no"
a much more interesting scenario to me is what would have happened if the weimar republic would have worked out better.
hitler would have never been able to overthrow it had there been even a little stability.
and before some stormnigger tells me hitler was elected completely democratically please look up "reichstagsbrandverordnung".
>>1244092
>Germany dindu nuffin
>they be good guys
>>1246486
>tfw proud hans
>tfw you're objectively wrong
this board is very pro-german. infact i'd say german thinkers are perhaps the most discussed thinkers on this board, namely nietzsche, stirner, schopenhauer and many others.
then there's also our writers and composers who are discussed off-topic all the time.
there simply is not much positive about Germany's role in WW1 and WW2.
but because you're a worthless subhuman waste of air and don't actually appreciate our culture or contributions you share this simplistic black and white view of the world.
>>1244028
germany/germanic people's are by far the most stupid people on european soil
not that they're mentally challenged like the russians, but they're excessively pragmatic and even if they managed to win any of the wars they've been into, they wouldn't know what to do - because for germany all that matters in life is war and conquest and to them war is just violence and aggression
and that's why they always lose in the end, because they're merely a bunch of warmongering bloodthristhy thugs unable to see further than getting revenge for everyone around them for some reason that they don't even remember
still... a war is raging at this moment, but this time the numbers aren't just the lives of soldiers but the wealth of countries and at this moment the nazis are winning since france is AFK
>>1247723
>he uses "Germany" and "germanic" to mean the same thing
>calls other people stupid
remove yourself from the gene pool
>>1247668
Here he is lads!
Doing what he does best.
Shit talking anything slightly anti-German all day long and providing no arguments or proof for his wild statements.
>>1247668
>Germany invaded France because Russia mobilised and the French refused to declare themselves neutral.
Germany invaded France.
And coming back to the post I was refering to:
>Were Austria and Germany going to invade France or Russia?
French specifically retreated their army from the borders to not provoke Germans and Nicolaus II wrote directly to Kaiser that he wishes NOT TO pursue the war.
>If Russia decided not to mess with Austria-Hungary right in their backyard and the French didn't back them in their imperialistic games to get back at Germany, then there wouldn't have been a WW1.
You mean if Russia wouldn't honour their treaty with Serbia, there wouldn't be WW1. Oh welp sorry mang but treaties aren't there to be violated whole the time.
But still if we'd commit historic's fallacy it would be better if they'd really say fuck it because A-H would fail horribly at fighting Serbs and probably go down in some revolution by 1915, you are completely right.
>>1245871
>Land troops in neutral Greece to attack the Austrians
>Good guys
>>1247745
If they didn't want war they shouldn't have intervened to protect terrorists in the Austro-Hungarian backyard. Russia had no business at the Balkans. Russia was playing with fire and France assured them that they'd have their backs. This is a historical fact that's not going to change.
>>1247740
I don't see any arguments from your side.
>>1247745
The entire point of the treaty with serbia was that Russia needed someone to support its expansion in that region. If Russia had its way then Serbia and Russia would have carved pieces from austo-hungarys lands. Once serbia was in danger the future conquest were in danger too and russia needed to act. Basically treaties are to be followed when they suit your own ends. Not to say that part of the reason for defending Serbia was also the fact that Russia would be a laughing stock again for not acting on their treaties. But the treaties were made with intentions other than just muh pan slavic bretheren.
>>1247771
>I don't see any arguments from your side.
>Utter nonsense
Also
>Germany was ill-prepared for a war before WW1
Said no one. Ever. They had been dying for a war between Russia, France and Britain since the Triple Alliance was established. Just look at the Anglo-German naval arms race.
>>1245913
>various UN Treaties
Shitposts discarded
The UN is trash, and they've never said a single correct thing
>>1247783
>Said no one.
Except for the German military?
>They had been dying for a war between Russia, France and Britain
They were deathly afraid of the two-fronts war. There was absolutely no desire to get into this sort of conflict. They were not cowards however, and would not let themselves get bullied either.
>Just look at the Anglo-German naval arms race.
You mean where Germans attempted to built a fleet 2/3rd the size of the Royal Navy in order to provide enough of a deterrent to make people think twice about an attack? This 'arms race' was blown out of proportion by British propaganda. Germany never attempted to outdo the Royal Navy. It was the British who had a policy of maintaining a navy two times the size of the largest continental navies who actually got the 'arms race' going, except that Germany never even attempted to overtake the other. How is this an example of German aggression when the purpose of the fleet was defensive in nature?
>>1244397
Jack Reed>Macarthur>Curtis>Garner>Long
>>1244028
Fascism instead of gaining a foothold in Germany, would gain one in France and perhaps Britain.
>>1245604
>Rape of Belgium
Top propaganda memes m8
More civilians died in the Second Boer War, which was also shorter
>>1247161
>>1247179
Funny you should say that considering that Germany had a broader franchise than the UK and implemented universal suffrage before France reintroduced it and was certainly one of the more progressive states with its more developed welfare states. Not to mention the fucking Russian Empire which was on the other side.
The German Empire was by no means perfect (especially in regards to some of the shit they did in their colonies), but they were not particularly bad when compared to the Entente powers.
>>1247697
t. visits the board once a month
They constantly talk about how any Germanic country is inherently shit, such as Scandinavian states. They think that England was just a bunch of snow niggers before the Normans. Also, Nietzsche was Polish.
>>1244028
>what if germany won WWI1
Es braust ein Ruf wie Donnerhall,
wie Schwertgeklirr und Wogenprall:
Zum Rhein, zum Rhein, zum deutschen Rhein,
wer will des Stromes Hüter sein?
Lieb Vaterland, magst ruhig sein,
lieb Vaterland, magst ruhig sein,
Fest steht und treu die Wacht, die Wacht am Rhein!
Fest steht und treu die Wacht, die Wacht am Rhein!
>>1247942
>The German military said so so it must be true
>The naval arms race was all just British propaganda
Not the guy you're arguing with but you seriously need to get the fuck out you Prussiaboo manchild.
>>1248707
>In 1897 Tirpitz, a follower of Alfred Thayer Mahan's theories about The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, became its Secretary of State. He widely influenced the Empire's foreign and security policy according to his concept that a strong German navy would be indispensable to change the balance of power by building a Risikoflotte (risk fleet) that would make it impossible for the Royal Navy to defeat Germany without suffering irreplaceable losses in manpower and capital ships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navy_League_%28Germany%29
>Grand Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, Secretary of State of the German Imperial Naval Office, championed four Fleet Acts between 1898 and 1912 to greatly expand the German High Seas Fleet. The German aim was to build a fleet that would be 2/3 the size of the British navy.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_naval_arms_race
It was never the German goal to pose an offensive threat to Britain. The strategy was always defensive in nature, and this is a well-established fact. What sparked the 'arms race' was Britain's two-power standard, but 'arms race' itself is a term that has propagandistic connotations, since if one party does not attempt to overtake the other it's not really a 'race'.
>>1248744
>The strategy was always defensive in nature
Defensive because they needed to try their best to keep off Britain's blockades while they invaded Belgium to occupy France. Defensive in that sense yes.
>>1248781
This was way before WW1 you retard.
>>1245018
>That was the Russians though
Literally every single side committed some form of atrocity or another, it wasn't all just one sided cruelty.
>>1249047
>I don't know what the Schlieffen plan was.
>I don't even understand the basics of the subject of discussion but still talk shit over things that don't coincide with my minuscule knowledge of the this.
Fuck off you literal child.
>>1244028
Kaiser Wilhelm was a vain, self-absorbed, deformed manlet with a serious case of little man syndrome. The kind of faggot who glorified war and conquest. Most of the other leaders weren't much different minded (at least the European ones).
If anyone was the "bad guy" during the First World War, it was the pompous fucking aristocratic cunts gazing at their war maps and ordering human wave attack after human wave attack.
The blame is not to be had with the general soldiery, but the self glorified pompous idiot kings, generals etc.
I mean Germany, upon realizing they're losers, started bombing civilians in an attempt not to destroy military targets, but to simply demoralize the enemy until they surrender.
Germany are the bad guys, lads.
>>1248646
>Whites win Russian Civil War due to German intervention
>France goes syndie while Germany just says "lol we got problems elsewhere."
That pretty much makes no sense at all.
>>1249131
>I don't know what the Schlieffen plan was.
Schlieffen's plan has absolutely nothing to do with Tirpitz' Risikoflotte as they were developed completely independently and for completely different purposes. The Risikoflotte served the purpose of maintaining colonial access and providing a deterrent.
Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>1249139
France was a republic and their leaders weren't any different. Not to mention that they were allied with the least progressive and most authoritarian monarchy in Europe - the Russian Empire.
>>1249261
You just did a total U turn and are now attacking something totally unrelated to the original subject, can't remember the last time I've seen someone so desperate to win an argument on an anonymous image board. This is the most pathetic thing I've seen in months.
>>1245196
That depends largely on what time frame the war was won in, if early it's unlikely that the Communists would've been able to seize power, if late then they would have.
>>1249294
We're discussing Tirpitz' fleet because you've been making it about that.
You got told in the original argument and then decided to pick an example of supposed German aggression, namely Tirpitz' fleet and the so called 'arms-race'. Then you were proven wrong with historical facts since Tirpitz' fleet is no such example as it served exclusively defensive purposes and was not even a 'race'.
And now you're trying to claim I made it about that? We can get back to the original argument if you will, which was that Russia had no business meddling in the backyard of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and France had no business supporting them in their imperial games. It was Austria's good right to root out the terrorists operating in their immediate vicinity because the Serbian state was unwilling and unable to do so. And it was Austria's good right and reason to prevent Russia from expanding their territory into the Balkans under the pretence of Pan-Slavism.
And even if you think both Russia and France were right in what they did, backing terrorists and putting pressure on Austria - knowing all well that this could lead to war, as confirmed by Poincaré and his own carte-blanche to Russia - then it was most certainly Germany's good right to defend their ally as best as they could.
If you still have nothing in response to that, I don't know why you're even replying. I don't see anything substantial from you, only memes and uneducated greentext.
>>1249284
I did say the other european powers weren't any different, didn't I?
>>1247730
your lack of reading comprehension is plainly offensive to be part of a board about humanities
