one of the major reasons for ww1 starting was the rivalry between Germany/Britain...Britain had an empire,germany didnt...Germany wanted one,Britain didnt want it to have one...You all know the story.
But assuming ww1 never happened...How strong could have germany become?? considering that they already had a larger population and bigger/better industry than Britain??
First of all, Germany had no empire but it had some colonies.
Nobody can really know what the faith of Germany would be without WWI. But it would have a major impact on history of the world as we know it.
My best guess:
1. Germany would be like Britain, a constitutional monarchy
2. The nazis would have never gotten to power
3. Russia would never have become a kommunist country, so the world would never have gone through the cold war
4. The US, Russia and China would have less than half the power they have today with Germany having propably more atomic bombs than the US and Russia together
5. There would be no EU and the old rivals Germany, France and Britain would still be competing with the US, Russia, China and maybe India for 'world domination' having smaller and poorer countries fighting it out for them...
So we would propably have a multipolar world with many more ongoing conflicts
It is interesting how the world would look like if one could turn back the wheel of time and modify one event. If for example Bismark managed to convince Kaiser Wilhelm II not to support Austria-Hungary and stay out of the war or if Wilhelm II was a pacifist, or if after the battle at Verdun Germany and France decided to make piece ... So many possibilities...
"one of the major reasons for ww1 starting was the rivalry between Germany/Britain...Britain had an empire,germany didnt...Germany wanted one,Britain didnt want it to have one...You all know the story."
I am currently reading a fascinating account of the lead up to the first world war, taken from a naval perspective.
In fact Britain had no objection to Gemany gaining some colonies and even provided some help in the very late 19th century.
The problem came when Germany decided to build up a massive fleet to support it. Previously the two nations were on pretty good terms and Britain would probably have used the Royal Navy to help protect German commerce.
All the time Germany held supremecy on land and Britain at sea there was a balance of power. Neither nation could do that much to hurt the other.
Then, under William II, Germany became determined to gain a fleet that could threaten the dominance of the RN and this was totally unacceptable to the UK. It would leave Britain succeptable to invasion for the first time since Napoleon.
Had William II's father Frederick (A thorough Anglophile) not died within months of gaining the throne, and survived for a healthy reign, there would not have been the antipathy between Germany & the UK that there was in 1914. Germany would probably have had much closer relations with Russia too.
Therefore when the events of 1914 kicked off it is much less likely that foreign countries would have been drawn into the struggle in the way they were.
Instead of being destroyed in 1918, German power on the continent would likely have continued, but it is impossible to predict what other political squabbles may have erupted to cause a war elsewhere in Europe- maybe none.
And there are the consequebnces on the Russian revolution to consider, too...
I agree with Metaxa's first three points, and half of his 4th. There may not even be any nuclear bombs today without WW1...
It's impossible to comment on the EU. Certainly it would n't look like what we have today, but there could be one of sorts.
Certainly Britain, France, & Germany would be much stronger than today. The US & China weaker. Russia & India are too difficult to call.
There'd be no Israel, no Middle East conflict as we know it, no 9-11.
The US would probably be its old isolationist self instead of the busybody nation it is today.
Yes, there'd probably be a lot of minor conflicts - much like today. But who knows where & with who...
Well, they're my thoughts. Sorry if they strayed off topic a bit.
This message has been edited by spud358 on Jun 3, 2005 7:44 PM
they showed the world just how powerful they could become during world war 2.
Now, if only the japense didnt drag the americans in the war, and hitler decided to fight the war on the russian front only after dealing with the western front, then tehy mite have won.
so the better question is, what if hitler had made a few changes during world war 2.
mighty people....for their size, they really can fight.
but thankfully, the nazi warmachine got defeated, otherwise we would all be living under the iron rule of nazi germans.
"...He is a formidable person and I am glad that he is Pakistani not Egyptian..."
- Eizer Weizman, Chief Of Israeli Air Force during the six day war, commenting on Air Marshal Noor Khan (Commander PAF at that time)
where it not for Bill's battleship envy there would have been no first world war, untill he decided to try to rival the British fleet (against the advice of Bismarck amoung others) he was well respected in Britain. Indeed it took his shear incompitence in deplomecy to force Britain into the Entente at a time when France was still considerd the most likely enamy
Colour Sgt. Bourne: Sir, sentries report the Zulus have gone. All of them. It's a miracle.
Lt. Chard: If it's a miracle, Colour Sergeant, it's a short chamber Boxer-Henry point-four-five caliber miracle.
Sgt. Bourne: And a bayonet, sir, with some guts behind it.
Britain, the worldwide superpower complete with its global Empire, hugely advanced industrial core and unrivalled Navy.
Germany, European superpower with its immense industrial capability, large population and economic power.
In fact: Fought eachother and others in a hugley destructive war that eventually lead to another, even bigger war. Germany is carved up by Britain, US, USSR and France. Britain sacrifices its Empire.
What could have been: Britain and Germany join forces, an 'entente cordial' where protection of a natual rival is not the issue, but the pooling of resources for greater European and global expansion. The much slower emergence of the US, the greater dominance of an Anglo-Germanic Europe worldwide, though probably a cold war between the British/Germans and the Soviets.
----
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: How powerful could Germany have become if....
June 6 2005, 10:45 AM
Everytime I see the Anglo historian's accusations that Germany destabilised the situation by building a powerful navy, I have to smile...
What God given right does Britain have to posses a superiour navy? Granted our navy was not our best investment, but still if we wanted to, it was our right to do that. Besides the fleet was DEFENSIVE in nature.
Without WW1 Germany would have become the economically and militarily dominant power in Europe, only Russia could pose a threat in the long term. I am convinced that if that happened there would have been some sort of preventive war against Russia.
The German fleet was not 'defensive'. Whether or not Tirpitz ever intended for it to actually fight is up for argument but he did want to put a powerful fleet between German and Britain in order to pressure Britain into allowing Germany more global influence.
Tirpitz knew he could not outbuild the British even if they managed to keep their construction plans a secret but if he could build a fleet or significant size so that the Royal Navy would not risk losing their global naval hegemony by engaging it then they would get what they wanted.
There is no 'god given right' for anyone to have any particular military equipment but as a naval power Britain relied on her fleet as the primary tool for defence. Any challenge to that naval dominance is a challenge to British security.
no god given right but if a powerfull country starts building a fleet which could have only one possible reason for beeing (to chalange the Royal Navy) its going to invetiably force them into the arms of somone else
his imcompitence can be sumed up with this interview with the daily teligraph in 1908
very interesting article. i do believe Germany at one time had ambitions to be allies with Britain but this fell by the wayside mainly because of Germany and ended up with the Entente Cordial. he asks why Britain did not trust him? you do not need the second largest fleet in the world to merely protect commerce, what a fool!
was thinking what would have happened if Germany had become allies with Britain if perhaps a war would have started against Russia and France. Then again Britain had an alliance with Japan during their war with Russia so i guess if there was to be a war against France and Russia it would have happened then.
1) Germany would either remain an absolute monarchy or constitutional monarchy
2) Nazis would remain an underground forces
3) European Jewry would have continued to thrive as it was half the German intelligentsia before the Nazis
4) Maybe there would be no Israel today.
So many things now change, just because of some decisions made by the Kaiser in 1900s.
"So many things now change, just because of some decisions made by the Kaiser in 1900s."
That was hardly decisive. If the Kaiser really had the power that the Entente propaganda/writers claimed, he would have stopped the war, he never wanted it. The war was wanted by a group of influential military and business circles on both sides.
What God given right does Britain have to posses a superiour navy? Granted our navy was not our best investment, but still if we wanted to, it was our right to do that. Besides the fleet was DEFENSIVE in nature.
Yeah, that's a crazy idea that Anglo-Saxons have. Britain was entitled to a big Navy and had God given rights to enslave dark peoples like Indians around the world. But Germany was not supposed to have a Navy?! That's NUTS!
I say this, Germany fought major powers - other white colonial states. Britain fought Zulus and fuzzy-wuzzies and pacifist cultures that produced people like Gandhi.
So Britain was entitled to a navy to bully third worlders but Germany can't have a navy to protect itself in Europe? What BS. Germany was obviously in the right in WWI.
"The German fleet was not 'defensive'. Whether or not Tirpitz ever intended for it to actually fight is up for argument but he did want to put a powerful fleet between German and Britain in order to pressure Britain into allowing Germany more global influence. "
Of course it was defensive, it was even termed "risk fleet". It was meant to be powerful enough to cause such losses to the RN to be unacceptable for the British to attack it since they would lose their naval superiority afterwards.
"Tirpitz knew he could not outbuild the British even if they managed to keep their construction plans a secret but if he could build a fleet or significant size so that the Royal Navy would not risk losing their global naval hegemony by engaging it then they would get what they wanted."
It's defensive, what more do you want?
"There is no 'god given right' for anyone to have any particular military equipment but as a naval power Britain relied on her fleet as the primary tool for defence. Any challenge to that naval dominance is a challenge to British security."
Considering your margin of superiority that "challenge" was only a reason to up your defence spending. A far more serious challenge was your alignment with France in the Entente Cordiale...
Panda you really are 1 in a million,or should i say 1 in a billion...
Not gonna waste my time trying to teach you some basic history..but you do realise Germany had a fairly sizeable central african empire before ww1???
@ germany 'causing' the war,
I have to say i agree with Reaver,our attempts to maintain our naval(and global) superiorty is one of the major reasons for ww1 happening,you cant really deny this.
Not gonna waste my time trying to teach you some basic history..but you do realise Germany had a fairly sizeable central african empire before ww1???
Who doesn't know that? Everyone saw the movie "The African Queen" on American Movie Classics on cable. LOL
That doesn't do anything to change the fact that Germany fought European powers most of the time while Britain mainly bullied third worlders (unless it had a sh1tload of other powers on its side like the US, France - okay not much help there - and Russia in the two world wars.)
Well im not saying that we were trying to maintain our global empire of course we were. The Franco-Russian Entente was a threat which is why Britain abandoned its policy of Splendid Isolation that proved such a failure during the Boer War and allied with Japan in 1902.
However the efforts to construct the second largest ocean going fleet in the world by Germany is more of a threat than the Franco-Russian Entente. Because of Britains two-power standard the RN was bigger than both the French and Russian fleets combined so security was still assured.
Germany building her fleet was a direct threat to British security. It has been known as a 'luxury fleet' because Germany didnt require a large fleet of this size for her security as she is a central European land power. Why build a fleet of this size, to challenge the RN in one form or another.
If Britain began mobilising an Army of half a million men then European countries would start getting concerned what it would be used for as it would threaten their security. Works both ways.
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: How powerful could Germany have become if....
June 8 2005, 11:03 AM
"If Britain began mobilising an Army of half a million men then European countries would start getting concerned what it would be used for as it would threaten their security. Works both ways."
You did exactly that and worse. How do you else explain the convenient presence of the BEF on the front lines. And on top of that you offered diplomatic and financial support to countries clearly hostile to the German Empire with the stated aim to claim now German land. You had your very own big share of provocations...
You are wrong sir. In 1914 the British Expeditionary Force was exactly that merely an expeditionary force intended for colonial policing and with just four to six infantry divisions and one cavalry division the BEF was tiny compared to the armies of Germany and France at around only 90,000 men.
This was because Britain expected France and Russia to do all the land fighting. It was only after the war started that Kitchener increased recruitment and by 1915 the British Army reached 2.5million men. Still smaller than France or Germany but the only time Britain has had an Army of this size for continential warfare.
I agree that Britain had her own aims and ambitions to achieve but you cant blame Britain for starting the First World War when her policy was to maintain the status quo as it was advantageous to her so war had to be avoided. Engaging in a naval arms race was cheaper than actually going to war.
The only thing i can think of is the Boer War when Britian sent 250,000 British and Empire troops to South Africa which was unprecedented for Britain but they were not a threat to Europe being located down there!
the war was not as much our fault as it was theirs. i agree that no-one in this period is blameless, everyone had a role to play but some were at more fault than others.
germany was at more fault than we were it is as simple as that. whilst all sides involved were so jingoistic that it was difficult to reverse any slide in to war Britain had most to lose. the Pax Britannica that lasted 100 years since the end of the Napoleonic Wars in which Britain was able to build up unrivalled industrial, economic and naval power would all be put at risk from a major war.
policy makers in Britain knew this they could see Britain's lead being eroded away and other countries beginning to catch up. war would merely speed up this process.
This is why Britain entered into alliances in the early 1900's so as to not be caught off guard without an ally like during the Second Boer War and entered into a naval race with Germany because it would be cheaper to build battleships than to engage in a continental wide war.
this had been done before in the 1860's with a naval race with France which resulted in Britain surging ahead with the production of HMS Warrior. in this sense they were going on experience and would have worked if other events hadnt changed things.
despite what modern revisionist historians think, that its popular these days to say that everyone was equal in causing the first world war, it was Germany and the Kaiser desperate for international glory with 'weltpolitik' that primarily caused the Great War.
"despite what modern revisionist historians think, that its popular these days to say that everyone was equal in causing the first world war, it was Germany and the Kaiser desperate for international glory with 'weltpolitik' that primarily caused the Great War. "
i will get back on the rest later, but this is just mind-boggling:
Why is it the Kaiser's fault that the Serbian government tried to assassinate the AH archduke through a shadow organisation?
Why is it the Kaiser's fault that Austria was so unreasonable and didn't want to ease their terms a bit?
Why is it the Kaiser's fault that Russian generals (contradicting the orders from their own Emperor!) ordered a mobilisation on the German border?
Why is it the Kaisers fault that the British foreign ministry was so anti-German and did their best through unclear responses to incite war and not to help to mend fences?
Sorry, but this whole thing about the Kaiser being a power-hungry evil maniac just can't be supported. Why in God's name was the supposed mastermind of German expansionism in NORWAY ON HOLIDAY when the war started? Who tried desperately to bring the Russians to demobilise? Hint, it was Willie the maniac.
And as for the "quest for glory". Compare the numbers of wars waged by Germany during 1870-1914 to those of Britain, France and Russia. Who is belligerent? France and Russia both spent a larger percentage of their GDP on their armies and navies than we did.
The Kaiser was a loudmouth, a fool and a crappy diplomat, but he sure as hell was no warmonger and he DID NOT WANT that war.
Sorry, but your diplomatic and military encirclement of Germany was far more of a threat to us than our fleet to you. We threatened your hegemony, you our very survival.
The real cause of WW I was the same as behind any major war in Europe for the last two hundred year. It's simple as that. England, knowning that she can't realy rival Germany,Russia or France on her own, has been constantly exploiting the rivalries of these three countries between them. So, in the early 19th century when France was the European superpower, England was siding with Prussia (i.e. Germany) and Russia. In the early 20th century when Germany was the European superpower, England was siding France and Russia. In the late 20th century, when (Soviet) Russia was the European superpower, England was siding France and Germany. England has been constantly maintaining her leadership in Europe by forming an alliance against the most powerful European power of each era.
Now, I'm not saying that it was not right for England to do it, since any country is seeking out for her own interests but my fellow Brits can't say that they are the 'good' gyes in every single conflict. After all, there are no good gyes in international politics, only national interests.
In 1914 the British Expeditionary Force was exactly that merely an expeditionary force intended for colonial policing ...
This was because Britain expected France and Russia to do all the land fighting.
Everything I said about these dudes is correct. They do nothing but bully third worlders and against realy powers on Europe, they depend on others fighting for them.
Bullying the weak was their forte and they thought they had a right to tell Germany not to have a fleet? The BALLS of these fellows!
BTW, I love Brit culture and literature from the late Colonial period. Kipling, Lewis, Tolkien, you dudes rock. But you're still sneaky bulliers of the poor and weak and who never fought a major power one on one. LOL
I agree with Reaver on the causes of the war. A twisted alliance system got us all fighting because one man decided to have a pop at Archduke Ferdinand, any other reasons i'd consider secondary.
@Panda
Yup, that's pretty much hit the nail on the head. We manipulated people and did it very well. No point wasting resources when you can get others to do it for you.
"They can't abide the cold steel, sir! no, sir! The fuzzy wuzzies, they don't like it up 'em!"
in a way yes it was, he could have put presure on them to be resonable insted of egging them on, they where clearly the Junior partner and would have backed down if the Germans had not given them explicit suport.
I agree it was a major f*ck up on the part of all the major powers and no one was blameless, the aliance system was bound to start a war at some point with the way things where going with everyone getting dragged into it.
im not saying it was all the fault of one crazy kaiser. he wasnt the smartest of men granted but all the points you raised where merely triggers and immediate causes that set off the war. the whole international situation and system of alliances and the whole build up is different.
i agree there are no 'rights' and 'wrongs' or 'goodies' and 'baddies' just that british foreign policy as described above is correct. the British army was a colonial police force for 'bullying' or whatever. its not a continental warfighting machine and never really has been.
i know that britain has no 'right' to have the largest navy in the world but when Germany builds a fleet of that size which it doesnt really need then you have to expect a response and increased international tension. the nationalism of the time prevented anyone from backing down and in the end lead to war through the triggers described above.
the point im saying is that the creation of the environment of mistrust was largely started with Germany building a fleet to challenge Britain and increase its global influence therefore is more at fault than other countries even if only slightly.
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: How powerful could Germany have become if....
June 9 2005, 3:02 PM
What's causes greater mistrust, us building a fleet or you backing your ally France who has the stated aim of taking back it's lost provinces which are now German soil?
you started your naval construction first things were fine until then and dont start going off on the encirclement of Germany, that again was your own undoing.
in 1897 Tirpitz became the Secretary of State for Germany's Admiralty and in 1898 your First Navy Law was passed. It stated that nineteen battleships should be built in the next seven years. The plans for the fleet were increased to even larger proportions in 1900, which included twenty-four battleships by 1920.
In 1901 the Anglo-German alliance negotiations failed. Between 1901 and 1902 the Admiralty became increasingly concerned with the German fleet. British experts predicted that by 1906, Germany would have the second-largest navy in the world, and in October of 1902, they went further to say that the German fleet was being built with a view to war with Britain - because thats what it was built for.
Even then Britain only joined the Entente Cordiale in 1904 with France in order to sort out colonial problems after the Fashoda Incident in 1897 not to encircle Germany. An 'entente' is an 'understanding' not an alliance. The Anglo-Russia Entente came in 1907 thus creating the triple entente and thus Britain was one of the last to enter into any alliances with other countries.
Even before this after the Congress of Vienna in 1878 Bismarck created the secret 'Dual Alliance' with Austria-Hungary and then it became the Triple Alliance in 1882 with Italy joining after disputes with France. This was maintained until 1913. so Germany's alliance building began first thanks.
Current Topic - How powerful could Germany have become if....
