If Germany won the 1st World War, the German revolution wouldn't have happened, so Hitler never rises to power, and the Holocaust doesn't happen, and Socialism/Communism is contained. Do you agree?
>ANOTHER "WHAT IF" THREAD.
COMMIT SUICIDE, OR ALTERNATIVELY, DO NOT MAKE TRITE AND FUTILE THREADS.
>>510183
French Mutinies. Russian Mutinies. British Mutinies. Austro-Hungarian Mutinies. Ottoman Mutinies.
>>510183
No.
There is no one "Germany Wins WW1" that you can start diverging alternate history from. Depending on how Germany wins; you can branch off into all sorts of different scenarios.
A world in which
>Schlieffen plan is supplemented with a suicide cruise like Lisle Rose recommended, BEF is severely delayed, and the Germans spill over at the Marne (or the Marne never develops like it does historically), war ends in the western front in 1914 but with most if not all of the High Seas Fleet sunk
Would be way different than
>America never enters the war, but Germany is quickly able to make use of territory gained in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and is barely, barely able to outlast the peace movements in France and Britain before collapsing herself into anarchy and revolution which sweeps most of the European continent.
Are two very, very different things.
>>510183
No. Following a German victory, the losing powers would likely all fall to communism.
Not entirely
>German revolution wouldn't have happened
Possibly
Possibly, any possible German victory would be the result of the 1918 Spring offensive, if German forces were able to keep up their momentum and march on Paris before American reinforcements could bolster the French and Commonwealth ranks - there's possibly other scenarios but that's more crazy alt history stuff
The issue is by 1918, public opinion against the Kaiser was at an all time low, due to the length of the war and the suffering of the German people from the British blockade as a result, not to mention Wilhelm II was far less popular than both his father Frederick III and Grandfather Wilhelm I, depending on how the German Empire played her cards postwar, there still is a feasible chance of revolution post-war, the success of depending on which way elements of the army sway
>Hitler never rises to power, and the holocaust doesn't happen
Debatable, depends what happens to Hitler and Germany, though does seem unlikely to occur, for all we know Htiekr may have returned to service after his recovery and ended up KIA if the war dragged on longer than historically it did
>Socialism/Communism
Partially, in this scenario the Russian revolution would still have succeeded in fact being crucial to the German success during the war, any German intervention on the white side to try and contain the revolution could easily trigger a revolution at home
Personally I doubt that any communist revolutions would take place in France at least, however there's the good chance of the socialist movement growing in strength along with growing revanchism, while in Britain there's a high chance of the country being either crippled by general strikes, the government resigning, and the Labour party growing faster than it did historically, or the small chance of serious revolution, either leading to the total destruction of the popular British socialist Movement, or a more radically socialist Britain established
There is tons of evidence that the holocaust happened, OP. Try checking the catalog next time.
>>509405
>>512243
read closer, friend.
>>512249
This isn't the alternate history board, this is the history board there for discussing actual history and not WHAT WUD HAPEN IF HITLER WON WW2 HHOW CUD SOVIT WIN COLD WAR
>>512254
please direct me to the alternate history board.
>>512249
What? I don't even have anything against alt-his, but like I said, you can come up with several differing "Germany won WW1" scenarios, and without more precision in how you get there, the question is meaningless.
>>512262
>>512254
FUCK, people. We are not writing a comprehensive essay on the subject. We are in a thread on 4chan. Why are we so god damn worried about being accurate? I'd say
>Well, it could have happened like this, it could lead to this, this, and this...
and you'll say
>That's preposterous, it would never have happened like that, and even if it did, it would have led to this, that, and the other.
And through this informal conversation, we either come to a consensus, or we don't. At the end of the day, we had fun. But you fucking killjoys can't do that.
>>510183
Yes, but you dont need to have Germany win WW1 to prevent Hitler
If Britain had agreed on the French plan for Germany in 1918, it would have divided in many small states and rendered irrelevant forever (like it used to be before the 19th century)
>>512271
Please go back to the third grade and learn some basic reading comprehension.
The longer the war lasts, the worse the overall damage to all concerned states becomes, and the greater the likelihood of successful Communist activity.
Germany winning the war in 1914-15 is HUGELY different than them winning in 1918-19 as are complete, direct, military successes vs limited, stalemating, outlasting sorts of victories. They tend off in vastly different directions.
If you can't grasp what is ultimately a very simple concept, you should probably leave this board.
>>512288
>basic reading comprehension.
What does that have to do with anything?
Look, if you have a scenario you'd like to post, then post it. I said nothing about the actual subject of this thread. I'm getting real sick of the elitist attitude here. I'm the one advocating for interesting discussion, and you're the one advocating for everyone who "doesn't know what they're talking about" to shut up. Do you even want to be on a messageboard if you don't want to participate in threads? What are you even doing here?
>>512249
Why would you ever assume that the Kaiserreich would not only annex France and the UK for no reason, but would also be able to.
>>512305
>following a german victory
I suppose I could be completely wrong, but I always assumed that a major reason Germany was fighting in this war was because they wanted to annex huge swathes of France and Belgium.
>>512312
But I *do* have at least a basic grasp. Perhaps not as in-depth as one so deserving of deference as yourself, but a basic one, yes.
When you say
>Please go back to the third grade
>If you can't grasp what is ultimately a very simple concept, you should probably leave this board.
it's elitist. And you don't even know if I understand or not. I said something you disagreed with, and that made me an idiot, apparently.
Fuck you, dude. If you think this thread is stupid, then don't post in it, you mongoloid.
>>512343
>But I *do* have at least a basic grasp. Perhaps not as in-depth as one so deserving of deference as yourself, but a basic one, yes.
You have yet to demonstrate it:
First, I see >>512249
Asking why does everyone hate alt-his so much, while linking to a post saying that the OP's premise is too vague to make a meaningful prediction from.
Then you write >>512271, saying how this is a thread on 4chan and how it doesn't need to be academic level discourse.
At which point I told you go back to the third grade. Nothing in either post even addressed my points, or was really much of anything besides a rant against a perceived bias against alternate history discussion.
Ergo, the conclusion that you either did not, or could not read what I had written.
>And you don't even know if I understand or not. I said something you disagreed with, and that made me an idiot, apparently.
It's not the disagreement, it's the whole "Addressing something completely other than what was said" part.
>>512358
Fine. If you really want me to spell this out.
You said:
>you can come up with several differing "Germany won WW1" scenarios, and without more precision in how you get there, the question is meaningless.
To which I said:
> I'd say
>>Well, it could have happened like this, it could lead to this, this, and this...
>and you'll say
>>That's preposterous, it would never have happened like that, and even if it did, it would have led to this, that, and the other.
>And through this informal conversation, we either come to a consensus, or we don't. At the end of the day, we had fun. But you fucking killjoys can't do that.
How does this not address your point that the question is meaningless?
=====
>Then you write >>512271 (You), saying how this is a thread on 4chan and how it doesn't need to be academic level discourse.
>At which point I told you go back to the third grade.
And you don't see how this is an incredibly arrogant thing to say? Oh, I know, you don't care. Great. Whatever. Next.
====
>[It was never] really much of anything besides a rant against a perceived bias against alternate history discussion.
Yeah. I get pissed off that people take a perfectly fine thread and start bitching about "THAT'S NOT A MEANINGFUL QUESTION", "THAT'S TOO POORLY DEFINED TO EVEN SPEAK OF. ARE YOU A FUCKING THIRD GRADER?" The fact is, we can bring up whatever we want here. And if you don't like it, go tattle to the mods or ignore the fucking thread.
LITERAL NAZIBOO HERE STOP WITH THE FUCKING CONJECTURAL 'WHAT IF' BULLSHIT THEY LOST AND THEY LOST HARD AND IF THEY DIDN'T LOSE LIKE THEY DID THEN THEY'D LOSE IN MASS UPRISINGS, FUCK OFF
>>510183
The Kaiserreich mod for Hearts of Iron 2: Darkest Hour comes up as an interesting alternative history example. In this time period. Most of the Entente States not being a member of the victorious Central Powers in WW1, namely France and Britain, would have been seriously threatened by communism. However, we must also look at Germany, which is now prosperous and more importantly has a highly prestigious military and now has hegemony over Europe.
So states like Russia would have likely never fallen into Communism, with Germany supporting the White Army there. Britain likely would have fallen into revolt, while France it's hard to say due to its proximity to Germany.
Austria has to eventually delegate power to the states of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and abolishes the absolute control it has towards them for a period of confederacy. The Balkans stabilizes as Austria remains the guarantor of peace and the dominant military power in the region.
no ones arguing they lost....duh. no shit. anyway OP...i dont think communism would have been contained honestly. In all likely hood ww2 instead would have been kinda like that game red alert...We would have fought the soviets over europe and containing communism. Overall though I agree in thinking that the world would have been better off.
>>512419
>We would have fought the soviets over europe and containing communism
If the Germans won quickly, does communism even exist? The only thing that gave the Bolsheviks the opportunity to revolt in 1917 was that the Czar was fighting an intense war for three years, and maintaining peace on the homefront was too much for their current government.
>>512381
>How does this not address your point that the question is meaningless?
Because you neither raised any competing hypothetical scenarios in which Germany won WW1, or addressed mine, instead preferring to bitch about elitism.
>"THAT'S NOT A MEANINGFUL QUESTION", "THAT'S TOO POORLY DEFINED TO EVEN SPEAK OF. ARE YOU A FUCKING THIRD GRADER?" The fact is, we can bring up whatever we want here. And if you don't like it, go tattle to the mods or ignore the fucking thread.
Then bring something up. Come up with a set of conditions that will lead to a German victory. I'll toss some ideas your way, mix and match them to come up with what you think would be a win condition.
>Germany prevents or delays the landing of the BEF long enough to make a more meaningful impact into France before everything bogs down into trenches.
>Germany realizes that Russia, not France is the weaker of their two continental enemies and aims their first, main punch East, instead of West: This might also change Britain's entry into the war if Belgian neutrality isn't violated.
>Germany adopts a unified theater command system in 1915 or even pre-war, instead of each front fighting more or less on its own, and trying to coordinate an actual, war-wide strategy.
>German efforts in Russia (well, modern Poland) yield more readily useful resources, especially food, which ameliorate the effects of the British blockade.
>Peace and surrender movements in the western allies gain more traction than they did historically, weakening the impacts of Britain and France.
>U.S. adopts a more isolationist stance, perhaps combined with fewer German diplomatic blunders, like not sending the Zimmerman telegraph, or playing the political game around unrestricted submarine warfare better.
>Italy stays neutral, or even joins the Central Powers.
>Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire's reform efforts in the late 19th and early 20th century are more effective, yielding more useful major allies for Germany.
>>512412
fuck i totally forgot this was a thing lol...ya in all likelyhood this would have happened. I could still see a small war between austrohungry and its states, probably a war of independence. I dont see england revolting at all though.
>>512429
> I'll toss some ideas your way, mix and match them to come up with what you think would be a win condition.
That's all I ever wanted people in this thread to do in the first place.
I'll be the first to admit, I know fuck all about WWI. I just wish people would stop bitching every time we try to have one of these alt history threads.
>>512445
If that's the case, then I'm sorry for jumping on you like that.
In my personal experience, some 90% of alternate history discussions are people who want to wank, not have serious discussions of what could change and what the ramifications of the changes would be. So someone defending alternate history in the abstract while not trying to directly build an edifice or attack someone else's got me to leap to the wrong conclusion.
>>512427
> Bolsheviks couldnt have revolted without the war
I doubt this. The Empire was collapsing even before war. Between 1906 and 1908, 31 000 people died in terrorist actions. Extremism was everywhere. It was a stack of cards to fall.
>>512470
It's okay. I need like 20 minutes of aggressive typing every day anyway.
>>512482
Not him, but it's far from clear that the Bolsheviks would have come out on top even when the Czar does go down. I mean, they weren't even the first revolution; and one of the reason the Reds did so much better than Kerensky's boys was that they were advocating an immediate end to the war, wheras the Whites were trying to hold out for a more favorable peace, which went down badly domestically.
>>512515
Plus, without the war there never would have been enough chaos for the Bolsheviks to make the bold hail mary plays they did historically, like storming the winter palace. Even if communists won out, it would have more likely been the Mensheviks
>>512310
Entente propaganda has succeeded in brainwashing you, Germany fought to prevent its own destruction at the hands of the Entente.
>>513490
0/10 apply urself
Without World War I, most conflicts since wouldn't have happened.
But these "what if x, y or z didnt happen" threads are so stupid honestly.
>>512433
Chances are that if Britain loses WW1 and America stays neutral that America isn't going to overlook the Entente's major debts to them, meaning Britain and France are going to have major economic problems. Also, Britain will be more desperate to keep control over Ireland which would likely backfire, especially as the IRA would most likely be supported by the Central Powers.
>>513514
not him but i'll bite: The war was Germany's attempt to break into the power structure of the reigning Great Powers, or alternatively the Great Powers' attempt to prevent Germany from disrupting their system. They had an established order, with a complex but delicate network of finances, trade, colonial territories, and ruling castes that had long settled into profitable relations with their counterparts in the other Great Powers. This was all established before Germany existed as a unified country, and Germany suddenly coming into existence and becoming one of the most powerful nations on earth meant that the Great Powers suddenly had to split their pie five ways instead of four. they didnt want to do that so they tried to cockblock the Germans. the German leaders didn't realize how determined the opposition was and thought they could bluster their way into the old boys club, hence the war.
it's telling that Germany's allies during the war were both former Great Powers who had been kicked out of the club and wanted back in, while her enemies were a coalition of the reigning Powers.
Without the french revolution, the western world doesn't destroy itself.
>>512249
>Why does everyone on this board hate alternate history so much?
Alternate history can be fun and for this board if it used more serious and in depth exploration what would happen and how, but not when it's used for shitposting and spamming same bullshit like "nazi winning WW2".
>>513558
>>513514
Neither of you have heard of the great Russian military reform program that was due to be completed in 1917 and would have allowed Russia to mobilize her armies rapidly and immediately bring them to bear on Germany and Austria within a few weeks. If it had been completed and war had broken out anytime after that point Germany would have no chance of winning against France and Russia, even if Britain stayed neutral, especially as her only ally on the continent, Austria-Hungary would have begun disintegrating with the death of Franz Joseph. With Franz Ferdinand, the one man who may have reorganized Austria-Hungary into a semi-stable state, assassinated by the Russian-backed Serbs, Germany could no longer afford to sit and wait while her position as a Sovereign power became too precarious, Germany had to strike before it was too late.
