What kind of terms would Germany have imposed on the Allies had they won the First World War...

Butthurt Russian detected. Your country managed to lose the war while fighting on the winning side.
>Russia
>Relevant
>Not shit
pick one

Look up the battle of the Marne.
Imperial German forces came very close to taking Paris and wiping out the British expeditionary force in late 1914.

If they had been successful, the frog lines would have collapsed and they would have been brought to terms.

And they got decisively beaten, twice.

That does not change the fact that they came very close to winning the war.
As per my original statement.

The entire power of the German Empire brought to bear on the Entente lines only ever brought the conflict to stalemate.

It isn't an exaggeration to say that the Americans' entry prolonged the war's end by a year. Neither side of the line had anything close to a decisive advantage, even after the German troops from the Eastern front were brought in.

The best possible outcome for Imperial Germany would have to have involved making sure the United States never entered the war at all, somehow. It's easy to point at the telegram incident and the sinking of the Lusitania but those were really just accelerants; Woodrow Wilson was an absolute crazy person who absolutely needed some way to gather enough moral authority to enforce his big dream on the world. If the Reich could have somehow pivoted Wilson's attention to other parts of the world, maybe they could have brought the war to a close with a slight upper hand.

On any real history site the "stabbed in the back myth" is mocked and derided, but on "le jewz are behind everything" site it is depressingly common currency…

I'm never mentioned the Jews at all.

I was referring to acts of industrial and social sabotage committed by the German Socialists in a bid to make Germany lose the war.
Such anti-German acts committed by the filthy Socialists are simply historical fact.

>to stab the nation in the back
This must be bait

...

.

jesus fucking christ, nearly a hundred years later and you drooling retards still spout this crap.

the reason its called the stab in the back legend is because its a legend, the germans werent stabbed in the back, the german army was bludgeoned repeatedly in the front and shot repeatedly.

the revolution followed and was triggered by the complete collapse of the german army and the total failure of the hindenburg line, the german army had failed, the german navy had failed the armistice was already being sought and the high command already knew the war was unwinnable, they sought terms when they did to avoid having terms dictated to them under the ruins of the brandenburg gate, the germans were defeated militarily, economically and politically.

the sociallists revolted at the failure of the old system, at the waste of blood and treasure on the chimera of empire, bringing nothing but starvation and death upon the german people.

do you think the germans could have survived another campaigning season after the hundred days offensive? do you honestly think they could have held?

they lost the war on the marne, lost it again when they failed to break through at 1st ypres, and a third time when they failed to accomplish anything meaningful with Operation Michael

Who could be behind that post?

They'll never accept it.
That's why it should have been partitioned.

Fuck off, trog.

Fuck right on off back to /pol/

Native, war mongering politicians are the worst enemy that the German people have ever had. All they did was bring needless suffering to Germany, and Europe as a whole.

>or even harsher than the Treaty of Versailles

Not that it'd be hard...

Yes, good goy.

in the case of a englishman thoroughly sick of the self serving bullshit of fucking kraut arseholes.

they lost the war on the battlefield, they lost a war they should never have started, and attempt to salve their wounded pride by lying to themselves about it, they lost, they fought well but not well enough and they lost, thats the end of the discussion, blaming those sensible enough to try and salvage something from the wreckage of the failed german empire for the failure of that empire denigrates both the sacrifices and triumph of the british and french and the courage and integrity of the german people who tried to create a new and better german state from the ruin of the old.

brest litovsk also had huge reparations even bigger than versailles iirc senpai. also those lands lost, even though not ethnically russian, contained a huge amount of imperial russian industry and developed natural resource industries

>the courage and integrity of the german people who tried to create a new and better german state from the ruin of the old
Indeed. The Third Reich was the state Germany was truly meant to be.

Treaty of Brest-Litovsk forced Russia to pay 6 billion Goldmarks

The Treaty of Versailles saddled Germany with a debt of 132 billion Goldmarks

well no, they did fuck it up, but they tried, hitler was the reaction, a decent german state didnt really start to emerge until the 1950s, the delay largely due to the arsehole reactionaries responsible for things like the stab in the back myth

Hitler got rid of the elements that would have prevented a decent German state to emerge.

And this is why Germany is nowadays the best country in the world.

forbes.com/sites/andrewbender/2016/01/25/the-worlds-20-best-nations-announced-germany-is-no-1-u-s-no-4

If they got rid of the rapefugees too it could be even better.

But they lost twice, due to their own tactical mistakes?

Hell, the second time they were retreating all the way back into Germany

>Slap on the wrist
>Obliterated the German economy, the German Empire, and the German state itself
>Slap on the wrist
WEW

woops, my bad then

>what is Brest-Litovsk

Reparations, of course. The plan in Europe was to annex the rest of Elsass, Luxembourg, Belgium, and Old Burgundy. Germany had ambitions towards Entente colonies in Africa, but it was extremely unlikely to gain them. They were also unlikely to regain their Pacific colonies from Japan. Obviously, Brest-Litovsk in the East.

They most certainly where defeated. Did the German Empire exist after 1918?

>But that doesn't count they weren't defeated on the battlefield!

I get it, Germany had perhaps the best single land army at the time of the war. They pioneered the idea of modern special forces with the stormtroopers. They thoroughly stomped Russia on the Eastern Front. Germany did all kinds of historically relevant things, but they fucking lost. They faced Three great powers on two fronts with backup from the two weakest empires of the time. They lost as soon as they where unable to exploit Russia's vulnerability after Tannenberg.

Knocking out Russia early may have enabled them to bleed out France and Britain by using the troops that would free up from closing the eastern front. The Schlieffen Plan was unlikely to succeed, and Germany didn't have the troops or logistical ability to win the First Battle of the Marne. A war of attrition was inevitable in the west, and Germany would need many more troops to win that.

Just because the German Army may have been impressive in its equipment, structure, size, or had notable innovations in doctrine and tactics does not mean it was not defeated. If you fight someone stronger than you and lose, you don't get the win just because you put up a good fight or had more training.

Definitely much harsher than Versailles. After a decisive victory, one after another the numerous German interest groups would step forward (if they hadn't done so already) and demand more and more territorial acquisitions.
Colonies in Africa, parts of France, Poland, all of Belgium, Luxemburg, and more. Moderate voices would be drowned out in the emotional public discourse, because the need to vindicate the sacrifices of the war was overwhelmingly great. Germans wanted their place in the sun, and if given the chance, they would have taken it and then some.

Well it didn't really stop their war making capability, did it?

You stupid fuck thats what the original dolschtosslegende meme was about

>we could have won but muh socialists stopped us

>was undone when germany got BTFO

your point?

>Germany had perhaps the best single land army at the time of the war
At the start of the war maybe. By the end they were completely outclassed by the British and French, tactically, technologically and strategically

Well remember no matter what Germany would never be able to take out Britain so them winning requires some sort of compromise

I will never understand why there are so many WW1 German apologists on this board. It's not /pol/ - they don't care about Nazism half as much as people think, and they certainly don't give a shit about Germany in WW1. I doubt it's actual Germans, since their English probably wouldn't be good enough to keep up such long debates, and in any case they get taught that everything is always Germany's fault.

And yet every time I point out, for example, that Germany clearly started WW1 by declaring war on Russia, France, Belgium and Luxembourg before any of them had declared war on anyone, rabidly pro-German posters jump to Germany's defence.

Who are these people, and where are they coming from?

Germans and prussiaboos. The rabid pro french ouiboos are just as annoying

They are probably actual history enthusiast sick of such a limited perspective on ww1

You could just as easily say that russia started the war by mobilizing first even after being specifically told this would be considered an act of war

They must know Germany was inherently wrong in most cases for WWII so they jump to WWI to salvage some self-respect

This.
In my history classes my teacher would always say "hurr durr, Germany caused the war. hurr durr, Germany was evil, just look at them 20 years later."

I was humoring the Germaboo. Even at the beginning of the war the British had superior troop quality, though it degraded over time on average. You gotta let down the pro-Germany fanatics down easy.

>Even at the beginning of the war the British had superior troop quality
The brits had the best army (singular), the germans had the best land military overall

No. The french military was bigger, mode modern, and better commanded.

*in the later parts of the war

In all of history.

*in all of history after the French Revolution.

>implying the french empire wasn't strong than whatever alliance the germans managed to muster against her

France has always been, and seeing how Germany is still occupied will likely always be, the better military force.
WWII was a fluke, a lucky break through. France > Germany.

Yeah I know that France has been the most successful military nation of all time.
WWII was a fluke indeed, but it permanently made them a joke for the rest of time*

*Until a new world war starts and they hopefully will succeed there.

My most hated meme, right after "general winter" and the "eastern roman empire".

>That does not change the fact that they came very close to winning the war.

Kids, it doesn't get any more retarded.

>had they won the First World War
Implying they could have. Look, the only way Germans would have had a 'victory' would be if the US hadn't joined and Britain and France decided that prolonging the war until victory wasn't worth the human and material sacrifices. So the German 'victory' would just have been a compromise peace. If they won the Marne, though, and knocked out France, I think that they would have imposed very harsh peace conditions. But we'll never know.

>But they lost twice, due to their own tactical mistakes?
I'm fairly certain that it's mostly your own lack of military terminology but Germany's mistakes were mostly strategic in nature. When it comes to actual military tactics Germany fought remarkably well (better in WW1 than WW2 I'd argue).

>Germany clearly started WW1 by declaring war on Russia, France, Belgium and Luxembourg before any of them had declared war on anyone
That's a rather short-sighted perspective because it leaves out the greater context. Germany didn't declare war out of random.

>France has always been, and seeing how Germany is still occupied will likely always be, the better military force.
You must be deluded. France got beaten incredibly badly in WW1. They had the greatest losses in their military history against Germany in WW1. France could have never won without British aid and Germany being tied up in a two-fronts war. WW1 Germany was simply too powerful - even if we only consider numbers. Demographically, the average German family at the time had three children, the average French family had two.

>take away France's allies
>don't take away Germany's allies
>"they never could have won!!!"

Germany couldn't even feed itself, it was importing food from Turkey during the whole war, and before that it was importing food from Russia.
Without its allies it would literally starve to death. So don't talk about allies winning the war.

Even if you took away Germany's allies it wouldn't have made a difference. France would have been defeated by Germany in WW1. Germany was tactically more advanced and they were more. There's no way around it.

If ITALY had joined the Central Powers (as it should have, those bastards)
Would they have won the war?

I know Italy sucked ass but it would put a lot of pressure on southern France, right?

If the Germans had wiped out the expeditionary force and taken Paris, France would have capitulated.
Given that the Germans came within 50 km of Paris during the battle of the Marne, I think it is quite fair to say that they came very close to winning the war.

Given the amount of disgusting frog apologists and /leftypol/ infiltrators on this board however, I would not expect many to acknowledge that.

>tactically more advanced
Everyone used the same tactics. Unless you mean limited chemical weapons use, sinking civilian ships with submarines, invading neutral states and other select war crimes are "tactical advances".

>and they were more
Both states had ~4 million military personnel initially, and mobilized ~10 million throughout the war.
French could afford to rotate theirs out of the front for vacations, so they were fresher and had higher morale.

>he thinks lithuania. baltics, ukraine and belarus would've been part of germany
They would be set up as independent states, thats the ONLY way to preserve them away from Russia.

It looks like they're vassal states of Germany, not incorporated into it.

A buffer zone between Russia and Germany basically.

Why does everyone keeps saying A-H would collapse instead of federalize?

That is a map of the Europe of the Kaiserreich mod for darkest hour.

Those states are actually semi independent from Germany.
Mostly buffer states, plus the UBD which is basically a German colonial/settlement state.

>I doubt it's actual Germans, since their English probably wouldn't be good enough to keep up such long debates

Why is being able to speak a foreign language fluently such a foreign concept to anglos?

This.
Norwegian lad here, I speak English fluently with no problem.

Fucking Brits/Yankees and their "muh superiour English"

Because the guy who want federtion got serbed.

>And this is why Germany is nowadays the best country in the world.
It's good if you're a black man who wants German pussy but not much good for anything else

Rhineland bastards? Now it's Berlin bastards

Main reason historically is probably that we are an island nation so, besides the likes of merchants and nobles, most people had no need of other languages.

Second reason is that, thanks to The Empire, English is the lingua franca.

Personally I can kind of speak French as well as English but the average pleb can barely speak english here

Also, the fact that control over scandanavia has historically changed from country to country also means that they are naturally used to learning more languages I presume

>A war they started
Oh lord not this again
>They fought well but not well enough
This war was won on economic grounds. With French and British coastal lines leading towards the resourceful colonies, bleeding out Germany economically was the way they ended up losing the war. It was not about being better at fighting but having geopolitical and thus economic advantage

>Oh lord not this again

>tell Austria to declare war on Serbia knowing it would lead to a huge war
>declare war on Russia
>declare war on France
>invade the neutral country of Belgium, dragging Britain into the war
>get BTFO
>All we wanted is peace! We didn't start any war! Fucking jews! Fucking anglos!

>obliterated German Economy and State
>Oh no we lost the colonies our founding father hated, better go into a preventative war like he advised against

Wilhelm turned it from another Balkan war into a world war, can we agree on that

So you're refering to the Fischer argument without actually knowing about it and using it completely.
This was a debate in the 80s no serious historian fully thinks that Germany is the single reason for World war I. Read at least some relevant and current history books about this before you argue.

Oh ans using declaration of war on these nations is simply short-sided.
Germany had a deal with A-H
Russia has a deal with France.
Russia has a deal with Serbia.
A-H starts waring with Serbia. Thus Russia comes to mind, mobilizing, starting to go to war with A-H. A-H being the ally of Germany makes Germany do the natural assumption that it is thus also waring Russia. Since Russia is allied with France, France is extremely likely to ally with Russia, thus it is going to war with Germany. Declaration of war in this sense is just fullfilling alliances

The fact that Germany had a blanco check with A-H and that France was most likely going to side with Russia in an instant and Russia was definitely going to protect Serbia was what made the balkan war a world war.
It is Germanys fault that Britain and the US joined the war though, I'll admit that.

Of course I don't think Germany is the single reason for ww1. They are easily the single largest reason though.

>Germany had a deal with A-H
...they also gave them a blank cheque and encouraged them to seek war with Serbia, knowing full well what that would mean.

Also, how do you defend Willy invading neutral Belgium, which brought Britain into the war?
How do you defend him bringing America into the war?

Nah because that would mean Italians would be evil people for sticking with the Germans and anybody that isn't German is pure at heart, just, and upright and made the right decision in history and that's all that matters. I mean gosh the huns were soo close to Paris, oh the humanity!

Man 1870 must really trigger you lol

And I'm saying this as a proud Norman.

Buthurt frenchie getting mad at German martial spirit and capacity for logistical prowess

I don't even know why you so mad at losing to Germans so many times, you're practically the same people

>Buthurt frenchie getting mad at German martial spirit and capacity for logistical prowess
Literally human wave tactics during WWI. Run at Verdun and die, then your cousin does the same, than your son does the same. Nice prowess, kraut.

>and I'm saying this as a proud Norman

I'm a Norman though desu

I have no dog in this fight.

Human wave tactics were used by everyone, but I think the French were extra kean on this compared to the krauts...

The World would be in a much better place if you had just accepted your place and let your cousins win. Now look at the state of affairs... Germany now owns you like a little bitch

How dare you defile the sanctity of the noble French people by comparing them to barbarians that want to destroy the same continent they share with other people. The French will always be the greatest people God has ever blessed on this Earth. At least when French go into other countries they make it 110% better and give enlightenment like Prometheus

t. francophile roleplayer

It's ironic that you dehumanize your brother like that. Like some sort of great other.

French were literally the worst colonialists, almost as bad as Portuagal and Spain. If it wasn't for your French revolution none of this would have happened and massed total warefare wouldn't even exist. It's odd that francophones always shif the blame away from themselves. Must be the German genes.

I'm glad I'm half slav, it must be suffering to be fully germanic, right frankie?

I am a Summerislander and I have four dogs, and I am aware that there are french, american and british forces occupying Germany right now.
They have occupied it for more than half a century, because it got fucked and isn't allowed to have an army.

The world would be a better place if we divide the land they occupy and recycle them into soap and glue.

I don't get it either but French are really egotistical and its not unwarranted sometimes but fuck they take it to the extreme. And yes its true that former French colonies are less successful than former British ones. Also i'm not French because by default they're all francophiles at birth

Reminder that Japan was never defeated in WW2. The war was fought entirely in the Pacific and China, Japanese soil was untouched. They lost because they surrendered, and even SCAP wouldn't depose the Tenno because westcucks didn't want to anger Japan.

>France was most likely going to side with Russia in an instant
Why not just make a pact with France that if either directly involved then so could the other, or offer up Alsace and Lorraine if France stayed neutral. Ahh but who am I kidding, the man who would have made those sorts of deals was kicked out by Wilhelm

Regardless of anything else Cadorna would have still failed, and Mussolini mmight have come to power quicker via a socialist uprising

Entente created new technologies eg tanks, Central Powers made new tactics eg stormtroopers

Because France wanted to go war with Germany. They were very afraid of the rising German empire desu, esp the demographics