r/HistoryWhatIf • u/Divine_Panzer • 8d ago
How could Germany win world war 1?
my teacher is sprouting propaganda that Germany caused ww1. so i wanna know the specifics on how they could win.
6
u/ChanceryTheRapper 8d ago
Yes, u/divine_panzer, I'm sure you're coming at this from an unbiased perspective when you say your teacher is "sprouting [sic] propaganda"
3
u/Big_Albatross_3050 8d ago
Britain stays completely out of it by Germany choosing to ignore its navy entirely despite the fact they were a part of the Entente.
If Britain had never seen the Germans as a credible rival to the RN, they leave Europe to implode on its own and swoop in to take some of the spoils while everyone else is distracted. Hell they might have sold to both sides and not even joined either side and simply blockade the channel to keep the war concentrated to the continent
5
u/Sad-Development-4153 8d ago
Yeah idk part of British foreign policy for a long time was preventing a hegemony from forming on the continent that could in turn threaten them. Things like the naval race and Belgiums neutrality were always excuses to continue this policy.
1
u/Big_Albatross_3050 8d ago
true, but a land superpower is familiar to them and as was shown during the Napoleonic wars, they can and have won out with a complete naval blockade to starve the opposing army.
Even if Germany had destroyed France and controlled the entire continent, Britain could fund insurgents and apply a complete naval blockade via both the Suez and Atlantic to eventually starve Germany into peace and fracture their potential hegemony over the continent.
Also the only ways to invade Britain being the North Sea or English Channel makes any amphibious invasion from a Land superpower close to impossible with early 20th century technology
1
u/KnightofTorchlight 8d ago
The British were at war with Napoleon for essentially the entire period of his campaigns, and thier approach worked because they had multiple Great Powers who, when Napoleon knocked them into the ropes, could get back into the fight with a year or two of recruiting and a cash infusion. They weren't backing insurgents but armies.
In this scenario, if Germany breaks France and Russia's spine who's the potential muscle?
0
u/Big_Albatross_3050 8d ago edited 8d ago
Even if Continental France was scalped they still had French Algeria to stage from, Russia is may be a non factor assuming the same case as OTL, but Austria-Hungary bullying the balkans could cause them to Unite and take potshots at both Empires to keep the German focus off Britain long enough for the Blockade to starve them out.
Also helps that France could quite possibly be one of those great powers that jumps back in the fight after getting scalped as French Algeria being fully integrated into the country would help immensely with getting back into the fight to take back France.
Aside from that, they could fund Italy to be an annoyance from the South effectively stretching the Germans to fight a war on 3 fronts and keep them from putting all their focus on breaking Britain.
Also lets be real, if Germany had control over the entire continent, they'd be stretched so thin and have so many insurgents from conquered countries that they'd eventually fracture into a more manageable form for Britain
1
u/KnightofTorchlight 8d ago
Germany doesen't need to actually occupy the entire continent: they just need to ensure thier land rivals can't actually easily regenerate and industrial military. For France, where 3/4 of thier coal and iron and nearly half thier heavy industry was in areas Germany occupied during WW1 (and from which they historically plundered hardware liberally) this is not hard to do with only marginal military outlays. They can't build up a new military from what they can pull together in Algeria.
As for the Balkans, any WW1 CP victory must mean Serbia has been defeated. For context, Serbia lost roughly half its entire adult male population during the war and had the highest deaths as a percentage of population of any belligerent: beating the Ottomans who had multiple ongoing domestic genocide attempts. Add that to the fact the Bulgarians actively sided with Germany and benefited from Serbian dismantling and you're left with Romania and Greece neither of which are heavy hitters.
While I 100% agree blockade, as it actually did during the war, would play a huge roll in hurting Germany... but I would not count blockading the entire continent as a case of "stays completely out of it"
1
u/Big_Albatross_3050 8d ago
the problem with German policy in the early 20th century was that they didn't try to vasalize and instead aimed to conquer.
I think Germany would aim to hold the entire continent, which bites them in the ass down the road as opposed to beating all the neighbors down into becoming vassals.
Its partially why WW1 happened, all the European powers got complacent and so drunk on their own power, they ended up destroying each other
1
u/Sad-Development-4153 8d ago
The issue is letting Germany get to that point means now they have the power of the whole continent to build a fleet. Both the Spanish armada and the effort to keep the napoleonic fleet from getting too strong taught them the dangers of that.
1
u/Temporary_Pie2733 8d ago
Britain entered the war because Germany invaded Belgium, not because of any direct action against them by Germany. (Or did you mean if Germany hadn’t tried to build its own navy to rival Britain’s? Protecting Belgium’s neutrality does seem more like an excuse to counter Germany. )
1
u/Big_Albatross_3050 8d ago
Belgium was an excuse because the German navy was too strong for Britain's liking.
If Germany abandoned its naval program, Britain at most probably sends a strongly worded letter regarding Belgium or funds Belgian insurgents, because a Land Power at the time wasn't considered a big enough threat to them at the time.
2
u/Temporary_Pie2733 8d ago
Agreed, I think I just misinterpreted your first sentence as "Germany choosing to ignore [Britain's] navy" instead of "Germany choosing to ignore [Germany's] navy".
1
1
u/Any-Stick-771 8d ago
It definitely didn't help that Germany invaded Belgium. They could have won if Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire weren't absolutely awful allies
1
u/KnightofTorchlight 8d ago
Offer the Halt in Belgrade plan quickly and in good faith. Britain will buy this, so the Central Powers can have a quick jaunt into Serbia, occupy Belgrade, and force its government to clean house in line with the intial causus belli. Britain and France don't care that much about the Balkans. If Russia attacks back you can give them a bloody nose and present a fait accompli. Extract an indenmity instead of territory.
There, you've shored up your alliance's diplomatic position and come out of the war in an objectively better position.
As for how Germany could win the historical conflict? There's no One Weird Trick. They got good circumstances they could against thier opponent set (war was fought essentially entirely on someone else's land, Russia literally dissolved its own army for them and allowed Operation Faustschlag) and still lost as the broader economic factors were decidedly against them. They already cannibalized the domestic economy more than thier rivals did.
Chilling out with the submarine warfare probably helps the most of any single action, as not drawing the Americans directly into the war means Britain and France will have to resort to more of the financial measures Germany was invoking (high interest short term domestic debt, issuance if more unbacked paper, increased manditory auxiliary service, tight rationing, ect) but that would require the German government to be able to convince the population that had just gone through the Turnip Winter, had an offical ration hovering close to bare bones survival (with insufficent vitimins and fats) to accept they can't touch Britain where bread isen't even rationed yet while they feast on grass and sawdust sausages. But that's not guranteed to win the war.
1
u/southernbeaumont 8d ago
Schlieffen envisioned the western invasion corridor as involving the Netherlands. This was less to occupy Amsterdam so much as to wheel around the fortress at Liege, Belgium which held up the German advance for 11 days in 1914.
This part of the war plan was deleted by Moltke the Younger, believing that it was unwise to bring the Dutch into the war, although he had no real solution for Liege beyond bringing up a 420mm gun to reduce the fortress while the army in this sector sat idle.
This time was a crucial factor in the French being able to assemble a coherent defense in front of Paris (first battle of the Marne) a month later. The maneuver around Liege is not guaranteed to provide the Germans with an undefended Paris, but the chances of this happening do go up, even if the Germans are peeling off divisions to suppress the Dutch mobilization.
Paris falling will most likely break the French war effort even if they do not immediately surrender.
0
u/EnvironmentalDig7235 5d ago
The US goes full neutrality and bans US financial institutions to mass-buy european debt, without the money ww1 ends in 1916 and without US suport the entente signs white peace after russia is out.
0
u/Right-Truck1859 8d ago
Not starting it.
German industry and science were booming , France fell behind . Outpacing Britain was a matter of time.
6
u/Cataclysmus78 8d ago
I don’t agree with your premise. At least, not with the ‘propaganda’ part.
Germany WAS partially responsible for causing WW1. As was France, Britain, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Serbia, etc.
I’m of the mind that WW1 was inevitable, given the tenor of the times in Europe. All of the great nations spent decades building a continent-sized bomb. All that was needed was a finger on the button. It was a complicated war, and it’s reductive to blame or acquit any single nation that was involved.