The world would OBJECTIVELY be better with a Central Power victory of World War One

>Surely the hypocrisy of the western allies was self evident to anyone who'd ever glanced at a map
Americans pointed it out.

But then again, like the Germans, they were one of those latecomer late 19th Century Imperialists. Except Americans are heavy into NO TOTALLY NOT THE SAME! EMPIRE OF LIBERTY!!!!

>implying anyone cares about third world strangers
Germany was a problem because of its expansion in Europe, no one gives a dusty fuck about Brits ruling over random savages half the world away

>with Germcucks and their Asiatic bulls
No

t. Butthurt frenchie

After the German sucess, a long period of peace and prosperity would have ruled in Europe.
No second world war, and imperialism probably wouldnt have ended so soon.
Much larger growth amongst European citizens and an eventual cooldown of relation between centrals and t. entente

First hostile act =/= started the war

Israel attacked first in 1967, because the Arabs were amassing huge armies on her border, yet hardly anyone argues that Israel "started" the six day war

Infringing Belgian neutrality, and thereafter massacring its civilians that didn't comply with the military occupation, (not to include the potent argument that Germany had manufactured the Serbian crisis into a causus belli for themselves from sheer egotism to put down the russians and french) were enough to sway most people to the Entente side.

The Entente hadn't been nearly as ruthless.

This. In a perfect world the HRE would be reestablished so that the little german states can practice their unique "culture" and fight amongst themselves leaving the rest of us alone.

Unified Germany is the single most destructive force in history.

What would a Turkish tricolor be like?

I know its shitty

I've seen a lot of people say this but none of them explain why

ITT: American with 1/32 german blood butthurt because some german get hit for reckless warmongering.

Europe would be better if French win the Napoleonic war.

Except that wasn't the case, Russian say they mobilize against Austria, and French tell their troop to leave the border.
>The French did not respond but sent a mixed message by ordering their troops to withdraw 10 km (6 mi) from the border to avoid any incidents
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#July_Crisis

...

None of that is an argument

>allying with the Turks during their peak when they were pushing deep into central Europe, just to spite the Habsburgs
>supporting the American rebels and giving new life to republicanism a century after the English republican ideas were dead and buried
>French revolution and the cancerous ideas it gave birth to
>Napoleon having terminal autism and wanting to redraw ancient European borders in useless wars that killed millions, still losing and then hailed as a hero by the clueless frogs
>dismantling Austria-Hungary into a boatload of tiny non-states and then pussying out and abandoning them all when Hitler came about
>surrendering and collaborating with Hitler and then inventing a myth of heroic French resistance after the war in order to save face
>historically cunting and bitching about everyone else in the world (Brits, Germans, Americans) despite being ten times more cancerous than each

France is the fucking tumor of Europe

Depends when they could have won it. Is it near the beginning where the Battle of Marne not occur and Franch is knocked out early? OR later after the bloodshed as the germans manage to break through the french lines in the spring offensive?

In either scenario, France would be further humiliated and I believe would be incredibly vulnerable to a communist take over in light of such a defeat. This is magnified in chances if the war lasts long enough for Germany to send Lenin into Russia.

Nationalism would have broken up Austria Hungary and the Ottomans at some point in time anyways.

The Great Depression would still occur and suck for the losers of the first world war.

Veteran soldiers would form the core of a new reactionary political force just as communist groups would coalesce into the COMINTERN.

Germany would find itself the hegemon on the continent but surrounded by enemies once again.

America counts its cash

Calm down hans

>First hostile act =/= started the war

Why are kraut apologists so funny?

Are you? They cut up large parts of the German empire after ww1. A large reason they chimped out and started ww2 was to regain the territories they lost and protect former German citizens from the persecution of the new Polish government made from a good deal of old German territory.

Get fucked froggo.

Why isn't Bulgaria in the OP pic?

>and protect former German citizens from the persecution of the new Polish government

Please go back to /pol/.

>anti German
>/pol/
Veeky Forums, your autism is showing again

But I a...wait, where are we?
Oh shit

Anglo propaganda and the Germans being the losers. The British worked long and could to keep continental Europe in a balance of power that benefited nobody but the Brits as they build their colonial trade empire. It's why you see them chimp out whenever someone starts making moves to gain actual power like they did with Napoleon. When Germany unified they thought "well great, some good goys to help balance Russia and France even more". Then the Germans got it in their heads that they were an actual state and not just shabbos for the Eternal Anglo which angered him mightily. Wilhelm, of course, was kind of a dundering idiot who desperately wanted to project German importance and, well, the Brits just couldn't have that. They'd already long thought the Vile Hun was a race of authoritarian war-making robots anyway so it became quite easy to vilify them for everything up through and long after the war.

They didn't even have to win, just remove Article 231. Wilson was against harsh reparations anyway but the Eternal Anglo and Eternal Frog just couldn't leave well enough alone.

>Except that wasn't the case, Russian say they mobilize against Austria

Germany had a pact with Austria and Germany couldn't just look on as Russia would have dismantled AH and consequently greatly increased its territory and influence yet again. The crisis would have turned into a limited Austro-Serbian war but the French blanco check made the involvement of Russia and thus the escalation into a World War possible.

Have you browsed Veeky Forums ? The only one sperging out are butthurt slavs/frogs/brits spergin out about germany.

The thing is: Regardless of all the memelords here germany was the strongest nation of europe. France GB and Russia weren´t able to stop them in WW1, they needed the muricans. Even in WW2 France and Britain weren´t able to stop germany in its weakened state (i would even argue that without US help the soviets couldn´t have won). Neither France nor GB were able to create a stable situation in europe after WW1, all the people here sperging about a breakup of germany etc. completely miss the point that entente didn´t have the political/economic power to really do that. If Germany had won they would have been able to create a more stable order, they recovered much faster from WW1 then france did and GB was occupied holding its empire together. A strong victorious germany could have prevented the SU from taking over ukraine etc. and most likely would have prevented a french revanchism more efficiently than the french prevented german revanchism.

I won´t argue that the reich wasn´t a authoritarian shithole but there were actually very promising developments. German law of the time for example actually was pretty progressive in regards to social security of workers etc. My guess is a slow democratic process would have happened in a victorious germany.

Hans detected

This so much

But user, that statement was valid. You have remember the mindset of 1914 was very much different from the mindset of today.

Frog detected

This shit tier /int/ posting ruins this board more than the /rel/ fags at this point.

Instead of endlessly repeating anti german memes i would be delighted to hear actual (historical) discussion for a change.

>Instead of endlessly repeating anti german memes i would be delighted to hear actual (historical) discussion for a change.

So what do you want us to discuss?
The time France destroyed the HRE?
The time France conquered Prussia in 19 days?
The time France beat Germany 2-0 at the Euro semi-final?

>France GB and Russia weren´t able to stop them in WW1, they needed the muricans

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnip_Winter

Germany was literally starving to death by 1917. Their last-gasp offensive in 1918 to try and end the war before the Americans got there failed in its entirety. With or without the Americans, by 1918 the Germans were going to lose the war. It was only a question of when and how many people were going to have to die to see that through.

Impossible. France would want the Alsace and will declare ww2 to take it. And Autria, the ottoman empire and Russia were doomed to fall anyway, and Germany wouldn't be able to handle all of this.

France would have lost two wars in a row, and Alsace. Ww2 cannot be evaded if Germany won ww1.

>Germany wouldn't be able to handle all of this
You underestimate us greatly my friend

>The world would OBJECTIVELY be better without Germany

ftfy

You couldnt handle waves of barely armed starving Russian conscripts

nice meme hans

France was weaker than germany in 19...

>WE WON FOOTBALL AN SHIT
>WE WUZ NAPOLEON AND SHIT

Yeah thats what i meant with historical discussion you faggot.
Nice, someone making a good argument. You are not wrong but i think given more time germany could have used the ukraine more efficiently. The Ukraine was a bread basket and the western allies weren´t exactly in a good shape either.

Russia would fall true, but without the ukraine and the baltic states, which would be in the german sphere of influence they wouldn´t pose a huge threat.

The fall of AH could be guided by germany to lead to a more healthy state of things.

Ottoman empire never was much help anyways.

The question is : Would a WW2 started by France and maybe Italy versus the Reich be more desirable? My answer is yes because this timelines axis wouldn´t be as much of a threat and most likely be quickly dealt with.

kys

Literally when? Germany won the eastern front in WW1 and to say the red army were barely armed russian conscripts is just revisionism.

Pure speculation

Get off Veeky Forums Niall Ferguson, you're in your fifties

>and to say the red army were barely armed russian conscripts is just revisionism.

Yeah, I guess they were volunteers with high-tech weapons

why are none of the germany colonies not filled in on this map?

They weren't just hurting for food, they were hurting for everything. There are reports from that 1918 offensive where soldiers overran Allied hospitals and were in awe of everything they had to work with. Medicines they hadn't seen in years, for example.

In Spring 1918, the Central powers made a peace treaty with the Ukraine that entailed extensive food deliveries. Chances are that the food scarcity could have been considerably mitigated if the Germans would have held out longer (which would have been likely without the American entry into the war) to wait until the food deliveries are fully set in motion

Ah nice its /pol/ again.
Literally pick up a book or two. The Wehrmacht was vastly superior to the french and british army, so i would really like to see how they would have fared against the soviets with lend and lease. My guess is they would be simply overrun.

Also it outraging how wrong you are. The soviets were armed to the teeth and had pretty advanced weapons. Downplaying the SU this much is ridiculous.

Yeah they had better equipment available but you vastly overestimate the shape they were in 1918. They weren´t able to capitalize on german starvation and other shortages simply because they were very fucked up themselves.

>Nonetheless, they still had an advantage of 192 divisions to the Allied 178 divisions, which allowed Germany to pull veteran units from the line and retrain them as sturmtruppen. In contrast, the Allies still lacked a unified command and suffered from morale and manpower problems: the British and French armies were sorely depleted, and American troops had not yet transitioned into a combat role.

For a german victory we have to assume the US doesn´t get involved imho. So with the US out of the picture this doesn´t sound like the allies would have been able to land a death blow anytime soon.

>Operation Michael, the first of the German Spring Offensives, very nearly succeeded in driving the Allied armies apart, advancing about 60 kilometres (40 mi) during the first eight days and moving the front lines more than 100 kilometres (60 mi) west, within shelling distance of Paris for the first time since 1914.

>In May, the American divisions also began to play an increasing role, winning their first victory in the Battle of Cantigny. By summer, 300,000 American soldiers were arriving every month. A total of 2.1 million American troops would be deployed on this front before the war came to an end. The rapidly increasing American presence served as a counter for the large numbers of redeployed German forces.

>NO TOTALLY NOT THE SAME
It wasn't even close to the same. No one in academia implies that it was. The huge difference is that our colonies were built out of uplift and the reality that were coaling stations for trade in the Pacific. European colonies were built out of exploitation.

He isn't entirely wrong. There were multiple anti-German pogroms in the lead up to WWII. Granted, it wasn't the primary reason for German expansion into Poland, but it was the stated casus belli and it was very real.

I'll admit that Germany outdid them by far, but interwar Poland was a far-right, authoritarian shithole too.

Somewhere in an alternate universe where there is a thread where some one is posting about how a world with an allied power victory would be objectively better. The truth is that is would suck either way.

You also wouldn't have the extremely rushed Michael offensive to worry about in terms of supply.