What if the Germans had won world war 1?

>russia remains an empire

We get either communist france or facist france.

traditional games

>Remain

Not sure. They might do the same shit the Allies did at the end of WWI and we have WWII with the names and places swapped around.

I don't know, what if Hitler wasn't Hitler? These kind of questions are kind of asinine because you can't just start from Germany winning, you have to change conditions in order to create a scenario that leads to German victory, and what you change is going to have a profound impact on what happens after.

I don't see who Britain or France could effectively invade in a reversed scenario. Germany got to do it because it was bordered by weaker Eastern European nations that nobody cared about enough to risk another war

No Western powers other than German influence in the Middle East. Ottomans continue to exist with a symbolic monarchy. No Islamic terrorism. No Iron Curtain. No Cyprus dispute. No Israel. Some of the Balkans under Turkish rule so most likely no civil war in Balkans.

Yet I guess if you think nationalism was inevitable no matter what the ww1 outcome was then I guess there wouldn't be THAT much change.

They do the same. Maybe they start off in Africa/China in the guise of reclaiming their old colonies for the goodness of white people everywhere.

Also Russia could invade those same eastern european countries.

There are a bunch of different angles for this to go with.

What Magical Realm stuff were you thinking of introducing in order to make it a possibility OP? Disregarding the whole 'Stab In The Back' mythology that the Nazis spouted and the military were happy to go along with, by Nov 1918 the great German Counter-offensive had failed. There were civilians starving in the streets in Germany because of the blockade, and they were down to less than a MONTH'S worth of munitions with now means of making any more because the blockade meant no new raw materials coming in and the supplies that Lenin had promised didn't materialise because the Bolsheviks were still too busy fighting the White Russians. And there were more Yanks landing in France by the day. The Krauts were fucked and they knew it. Hence, surrender. Yes they didn't fight a defensive battle on their home ground, but their troops would have been reduced to fighting without bullets by the time they'd got back across the Belgian and Netherlands borders

No Civil Rights Movement.

Belgium, luxemburg and the north east of france would eventually have turned into a weird chechnya-esque warzone as the locals fought against german rule, so you likely would have seen Germany still being drained of strength, losing the kaiser and going kinda fascist, but more like Tito or Peron style fascism, still lots of murders, disappearances of opposition, a few nuns get machine gunned but none of that "let's make germany great again" need to prove themselves by one upping every catastrophy.

Eventually Germany would likely cut off the bleeding stump that is belgium and luxemburg, but not the captured french territory, leading to a belgium free state.

At the same time, France is gonna pick up the slack on the "let's make france great again" bandwagon and heavily militarise and develop their own equivalent of naziism - which causes another arms race between germany and france but that is interrupted by Japan being able to go hog wild in the far east, ultimately starting ww2 between france and japan, with germany lending aid to japan and getting drawn in when aircraft from a french "submarine cruiser*" sinks a german civilian ship.

* washington treaty equivalent in this time line ALSO didn't make mention of maximum tonnage on submarines, leading to the french and japanese building subs capable of housing and launching aircraft in suprisingly large numbers

Now use your imagination user. Of course by 1918 the Germans were on their last legs.

I am of the personal opinion the German Imperial Army was far superior to the Wehrmacht, so work with the opening stages of the war. Perhaps the Germans decide to focus on the Russians first, and simply hold back the French? A very plausible idea. Offensives were always the more costly endeavor and though the Russians performed quite well compared to what people expected of them, they were still unprepared for a dedicated German offensive.

So Belgium isn't invaded, the United Kingdom doesn't join the war - hell, before Belgium public opinion was to assist the Germans!

>What Magical Realm stuff were you thinking of introducing in order to make it a possibility OP?

Germany wins the war with strategically placed succubi (and incubi for the french), of course.

Maybe. Depends on when Germany wins.

If they win at the Marne and the war ends in 1914 then Russia is going to go through some disorder, similar to that which followed the Russo-Japanese war. But they won't have suffered the horrific casualties from over 3 years of fighting, but rather just one major defeat (Tannenberg). Likely you'd see the same republican rebellion that happened in Feburary 1917, but this time in 1915.

However then there's the question of what Germany would do. A resurgent German Empire borders Russia, and would have no interest in a government in charge there that wasn't going to co-operate with Germany. Germany had no more love for Bolsheviks than any other Western government, and only shacked up with them in the 1920's due to both states being pariahs. So if the Reds did try to rise up (and Land, Peace, Bread is less appealing if Peace has already happened), it's highly likely that Germany would send troops into Russia to support a non-Bolshevik government, be that a Tsarist regime (probably the preference of the Kaiser) or a republic. Germany did set up client puppet states in the East during WW1, and political chaos and civil war in Russia could lead them to attempt something similar but with the whole country.

It's more likely that German intervention would lead to a Bolshevik defeat than the Allied interventions during the Russian Civil War since Germany can just shuttle troops in by railroad, as opposed to the sea, like the allies.

>Belgium, luxemburg and the north east of france would eventually have turned into a weird chechnya-esque warzone
not really , Luxembourg operated normally under German rule and the flemish had much better prospects under the Germans than under their own government
it took untill 1932 for us to get a university in dutch in Flanders, something which the Germans already implemented during their occupation
maybe lorraine would be more rebellious but it would be FAR from Chechnya tier
>ypres doesn't get flooded so the germans capture the northern french harbors
>battle of the marne results in a complete German victory

wow what a fucking magical realm

...

It's an alternate history setting dude, chill out.

Still, Russia would have troubles on all sides.
In mainland Russia you would have red rebellion brewing while in the border regions parts of the empire are already engaged in terror attacks against the Russian government and some high ranking governor generals have been assassinated already, shit is only going to escalate further.

>hell, before Belgium public opinion was to assist the Germans!
were did you get that fucking idea from ?

How?

Schlieffen Plan works out? They hold Paris to ransom and laugh all the way to an awkward peace?

Belgium would stay more or less the same- Flemish and Walones trolling each other, the king keeping them together.
The invasion of Belgium was done to get around the french positions, not to conquer Belgium.

>captured french territory
>in ww1
It was not the plan to take territory in france.
The german leadership knew since 1871 that nationalism was a thing.
The only french soil in europe of interest was already german at that time.

Luxemburg could go either way.

Not him, but the British were pretty pro-german at that time.

Now we're getting somewhere user. Of course it would need Kaiser Bill having better advisors than he actually had, but at least you're applying thought process, rather than just 'what if?' with no means of it being possible. I disagree with you on the merits of the Wehrmacht as opposed to the Imperial Army though, Even during the Reichswehr period under the Weimar Republic the troops were better trained (Because there were so much fewer), The staff officers generally better quality (again fewer, more selective promotion), they had cross-training with the best of the Red army at the time (Most of whom had been Whites that switched sides, this was long before Stalin's purges remember) and the limitations on numbers imposed by the Versailles treaty led them to focus more on small-unit tactics and individual thinking than any other European army at the time, Sure Liddell-Hart, De-Gaulle, Patton and Eisenhower ALL published similar works embracing the basic principles of Blitzkrieg, but it was only the Germans who really developed in practice the 'Schwerepunkt' principle that had led to the Stormtroopers in WW1, a concept by the way that they'd copied off the Canadians.

I'm cool with that.

not really
before the turn of the century maybe
by 1914 they had already allied (wether they would honor it was of course still up to debate at that point) with France , mostly because of Germany's attempt to raise a navy that threatened Britain's superiority at sea

So what concessions are the German state looking for, surely their not happy letting the 1st proper European in decades end with just Austrian investigators being allowed into Serbia?

Point to a single post in this thread that even mentions a traditional game

Go on, just one

The germans were always complete morons in the foreign policy, huh?

>Point to a single post in this thread that even mentions a traditional game

Veeky Forums is neo-pol cancer.

Ypres: Well it would be magical realm if they had Weather Wizards ;p.
Marne: How do you see them winning, and really, how would a victory have really made a difference with the naval blockade still in place? Now, if they'd actually won at Jutland and been able to send their High Seas Fleet where they could do some good, maybe things would have been different, but an army fast running out of supplies and heading into enemy territory with pretty much limitless numbers of fresh troops to oppose them is doomed to slow, halt, entrench and finally be overwhelmed.

The Germans would have humiliated France, forced them to concede provinces with German-majorities, and get colonial holdings in Africa.

Which isn't really that bad of a deal.

Nah, I think it would have just Balkanized, which is an interesting scenario in its own right.

>Canadians
>Stormtroopers

Samefag here, Shit, just realised you meant the First battle of the Marne, yeah, that was within the realms of possibility and it WOULD have made a HELL of a difference, sorry user.

There was a plan for the High Seas fleet to sail out and blockade the Channel in conjunction with the drive into France. And given the relative strengths of the Channel Fleet it would have gone to the bottom very quickly (No Dreadnoughts in the channel, only a few older cruisers and modern Destroyers). That would have prevented the BEF from landing in France for a critical few days or so and could have ensured a German victory. However the Kaiser was afraid of losing the High Seas Fleet (Which is why sans Jutland it never tried to engage the British 1 on 1) so he had that plan pulled.

I'm doing my Masters on the Navy, and have spent all year studying the Dreadnought Race and both powers in WWI. And instead of actually writing my Masters, I'm writing shit on here.

Maybe Europe wouldn't be under siege by libcucks and darkies threatening to turn Europe into a darker continent than Africa

Literally nothing to do with traditional games.

mmmh i wonder what caused the sudden change in german diplomatic relations
willie you dumb fuck
ypres was caused because the Belgians opened some
floodgates (under gunfire to illustrate how close it was)
marne: well iirc there were some fuckups made by the german commanders caused by getting to greedy in chasing the retreating french in an alternate history setting they could have stuck closer together

Paschendale user, the Krauts were fucking terrified of the Canadian trench-clearing squads, The moose-fuckers divided their men into small squads, moved quickly and exploited break-throughs, rather than using human-wave tactics. Sound familiar?

don't forget the time those fucking leafs dug a tunnel and jumped out a few meters infront of the German trench

Good point, Again, Kaiser would have needed better advisors. Good luck with your masters user, you clearly know your shit so I'm sure you'll breeze it.

Of course it is. How many times has Waterloo been refought with little tin men?

Hey, I fucking LOVE the moose-fuckers. They gave us Rush and the Trailer Park Boys. I'll even forgive them their utter fucking HERESY of insisting on pouring syrup over bacon for that. :)

It's less the advisors and more the whole German Warplan, which was a curious mix of both daring and caution. The Schlieffen Plan is considered incredibly daring and yet the caution of the German officers meant that it was weakened (Divisions stripped from the right wing and sent to other theatres) and of course the German Navy was never used in any effective way beyond the Submarine Warfare, which only served to bring the United States into the conflict and ensure a German defeat.

The Navy in particular was such a vanity project for both the Kaiser and Tirpitz that was made as both a counter to the Royal Navy and as an example of 'Germandom' and a propaganda piece. And yet it spent most of the war in dock and never served the purpose it was made for, that is to wrest control of the sea from the Royal Navy. A Navy unused is a Navy wasted. That's a reason Hitler never gave his Navy half the attention it could have deserved, he could see how it had done nothing in the Great War and was more concerned with continental power, forgetting that control of the seas was the only way to truly defeat Great Britain.

>the Dreadnought Race
Even though they were never really worth the millions spent on them, I still think the dreadnoughts were damn cool - and it wasn't just Europe that did it, even South America had a brief dreadnought race.
Good luck with that Masters user

By 'advisors' I was including the General Staff.
You're right about the navy, Kaiser Bill even proclaimed that he wanted it to be 'The Second-best in the World'. That's a whole level of idiocy right there.
As for Hitler, let's not forget that he never really trusted the navy because they'd mutinied in 1918, and that prior to the Munich crisis he'd seen GB as a natural ally, he was willing for Britain to maintain her overseas empire provided they didn't interfere with his plans for mainland Europe.

That's a big crew.

The Mutiny makes a lot of sense when you look into life on board German Warships. The German Navy was even more conservative than the army in terms of ranks (with Liberalism a major fear in the Navy), and those of officer rank and higher continued to eat well even as the regular sailors rations were cut. There was also a lot of contempt for those sailors of lower rank among the officers.

For Discipline nothing was worse than the Japanese Navy in both World Wars. Their Discipline was downright draconic, their instructors were sadistic and hazing often led to nervous breakdowns.

Just have Rommel being noticed for the badass genius he was earlier, and being left in charge of the western front.
Just read his book, guy was a absolute magnificent madman

Didn't the mutiny happen because the officers wanted to do a suicide charge, going out in a blaze of glory and destroying as much of the british fleet as possible?
(To which the crews responded "Fuck that, the wars almost over, I'ma go home")

They'd be stuck with a bunch of rebellious, ruined territories who hated their guts and would actively work to undermine them at every turn.

Land wars are dumb. They stopped being useful after the 19th century. Technological advancements mean any "conquered" country can quickly and efficiently organize a rebellion, or at least a means to make occupying their territory more costly to the occupier.

World would be a lot better than it is now.

Wft no. Technological advancements were what made it possible for empires to expand across the entire planet.

Yes. But also the crew were sick of the fact that they had spent the whole war doing nothing, and then at the last second they were to go out on a pointless death and glory charge.

The Navy's patriotism cannot be questioned though. They sank their own fleet in Scapa Flow rather than hand it over to the allies after they heard the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

Empires are united by culture. Spreading culture takes time, lives, and money. Ask yourself if the territories acquired by these empires are useful in terms of output or cultural relevance in the modern day.

Land wars are a complete and utter waste of time. Empires more so.

The "Second-best in the World" bit was meant for the UK. Old Willie had this weird idea that he could simultaneously have an arms race with Great Britain and draw them to his side diplomatically. This was because he was a massive Britaboo on top of being GERMANY STRONK.

>wars are dumb

Breaking news at 11

He might have partly meant it to be taken by his cousin as 'lol no mate, YOU'RE still the alpha male here' But he was also partly serious, Germany's Dreadnought class building programme was deliberately slowed on Silly Billy's direct order to allow the Brits to keep ahead of the race. Frankly the Royal families of Europe were a classic example of why first-cousins shouldn't marry.

/pol retard spotted.

What if the Vietnam war was fought against amazons?

True, but it doesn't change the fact that they DID mutiny, and as an infantryman Hitler was pre-disposed to mistrust them forever after that.

Several things. Most of them are defined by the availability of oil and natural gas.

Germany would probably win if Russia folded to civil war a couple mmonths before it did, and then they wouldn't have had to declare total submarine warfare against the Americans because they had a front free. US getting into the battle would be harder/occur later, and France probably would have folded since it was on the verge of doing so.

The fate of France:
France is completely subjugated and put under colonial law. The rule is harsh, rebellions are frequent, but Germany doesn't let go. After a few generations, barring a diplomat of Bismarck's caliber, the new French generations don't remember their independence and the entire nation becomes a shitty, impoverished, crime-ridden ghetto.

The fate of England:
England becomes a second-rate power. The Germans can't push across the ol' Channel, they're too war-fatigued, so the British remain independent. But they don't have access to the critical oil deposits in the Middle East because the Ottomans, a German ally, are on the winning side. The Middle East doesn't get carved up by the winning powers like it did when Germany lost. Without oil, the British navy, still running on coal, becomes obsolete, and due to their relatively low ship range, they probably lose a lot of their remaining territories to Germany and Japan. They keep a stiff upper lip, but harbor a deep resentment to the Germans deep down inside for displacing them.

Pic related, it's best waifu.

1/3

Free next day delivery on the one hand, corporate tax-dodging on an industrial scale on the other.

The fate of Russia:
Still becomes the Soviet Union, since Germany could not have won before Russia collapsed. Germany doesn't take Russian territory since they don't push the front after defeating France, as they are too war-fatigued and nobody wins against the Russian winter and Russian roads. The USSR still becomes a major world power, because they have natural deposits of natural gas and oil and their military is not obsolete. They probably do not become a nuclear power without the Czech uranium deposits and captured WWII German rocket scientists.

The fate of Japan:
Japan is a real winner. They conquer most of the Far East in subsequent wars, and probably establish a Pan-Asian Empire. It is not a fun place to live, especially if you are not Chinese. They also get in frequent skirmishes with the USA over various Pacific islands, but none of them end with the decisiveness of WWII, so both nations remain. With the land and industrial resources of a Pan-Asian Empire, Japan is able to contend with the USA on a level they weren't able to in WWII.

The fate of the Ottomans:
I can't say. They probably fall apart, in any case, but I can't say they become a German puppet state because the Germans, at the time, did not possess any degree of finesse or subtlety required for a puppet state. Even if they do fall apart, though, the Germans retain control of the Middle East oil fields. Russia yearns for Constantinople, but they still don't get their warm water.

2/3

The fate of the Austro-Hungarians:
Definitely falls apart. The Hapsburg Monarchy was destined for failure at the very beginning. They fall apart to internal strife and Socialist influences (because one of the things they actually, historically did was get their soldiers to fraternize with Russian soldiers, ostensibly to disincentivize the Russians from being willing to kill AH soldiers, but in actuality all this did was cause the AH soldiers to adopt Socialist and Communist ideologies that the Russian rank and file carried). They may nominally become Socialist states, but in actuality, the fractal Balkan ethnic groups go back to killing each other in the woods and hills like they have always done.

The fate of the USA:
No matter what gov't the USA had, it was destined for greatness due to the richness of its natural resources. It does not develop the same animosity towards the USSR, but probably gets into a cold war with the German Empire. It, along with the USSR and the German Empire, probably become one of three modern great powers. None of the great powers like each other, but USSR and USA probably get along fairly well due to mutual hatred of the Germans. A number of people in the USA continue to like Germany due to Irish and German heritage, but mostly, they dislike Germany due to u-boat warfare.

The fate of Germany:
I'm almost as uncertain as I am with the Ottomans. They probably become a Socialist state--without the failure of the Weimar Republic and the demonization of Socialists by the Nazi Party,, the Socialist elements that developed amongst the workers and soldiers are left to develop almost free of impediment as the government focuses more on suppressing the French than its own civilians. Germans become an undisputed world power and the Ottomans are their oil bitch. Germany becomes the center of culture and technology.

3/3

Bonus Round:

The fate of the Jews:
Without the holocaust and WWII, Israel is never made. Europeans continue to wholesale dislike Jews and New York becomes the new Jerusalem. Germany, without having the failure of Weimar Republic and the demonization of the Jews, remains one of the most friendly nations to Jews and becomes the secondary center of Jewish influence.

You do realise that it was the Royal Navy who made the switch from coal to oil first, right? And that Britain ALREADY having an empire in the first place played a BIG part not only in Kaiser Bill's ambitions for an empire of his own, but also in Germany's defeat.

Hooo boy

If we're getting technical here, a french writer came up with a bunch of the original concepts involved with fast-assault/infiltration that we generally refer to as "Shock Troop" tactics nowadays, but the Canadians actually adopted it first probably as part of a campaign to keep them wriled up into a fury by their commanding officers. I'm assuming this was much to the surprise of the writer of the original treatise, who probably penned it up as a gag and didn't expect anyone to be so suicidal and angry that they would actually do it. It worked well enough that the Germans started translating copies of this document to help train their shock-troop divisions, but this all happened in such a small stretch of time it's hard to truely pin down where the origin of the suite of tactics came from.

It's still much more likely that the term "stormtrooper" was originally coined by the Germans to refer to their own troops who used this tactic, but the term was also used to refer to ANYONE who used the tactic very swiftly thereafter. It just so happened that a shitload of those people happened to be psychopathic moosefuckers who had been told that the Germans were crucifying their prisoners and executing them and shit.

>implying Germans aren't superior Clankers
Darwinists out

Yeah, but I'm talking more about major access/long term here. Anyways, this is just idle speculation.

Ok, fair point, but short or long term, the side with the better access to, and freedom to move men and materiel is almost always going to win.

You would be asking what would have happened if the French had won world war 1 instead.

There would be no WW2

Reactionary authoritarianism takes hold in France instead of Germany, which would have inevitably had much more favorable peace terms after WWI than our world's Treaty of Versailles, meaning their re-armament would be even faster and scarier than the Nazis'. Plus, the French had an even bigger boner for super-heavy tanks than Hitler did.

Enjoy watching the eternal Hun get steamrolled by enormous land battleships flying the Bourbon dynasty flag.

>Enjoy watching the eternal Hun get steamrolled by enormous land battleships flying the Bourbon dynasty flag.
Aside from the failings of the super heavy tanks, bridges and being vulnerable to air attacks.

>No trigger discipline.
Consider me mad.

I mean, there might be. It would just have a different context and probably wouldn't be a direct consequence of the first one. The main reason there hasn't been a third world war is because everyone involved would get nuked.

This is true, but their 'alliance' with France was handshake deal, nothing more. Public opinion in the UK wasn't pro-German as some anons have said, but it was something closer to "Wow, this war sounds a lot like a French problem, let's sit it out." Even if the government was more pro-French. It wasn't until the invasion of Belgium that this stalemate was broken and Britain finally had the alibi to get involved.

It's likely that without the Schlieffen Plan the UK stays neutral, and without them, the US also stays neutral. The Bongs would probably be the arsenal of the French to an extent like the US were to the UK, and maybe they'd join towards the end, but they certainly wouldn't be as involved as they were irl.

> Putting Rommel in charge of vast strategic concerns
> Ever a good idea
Yeah, the guy was an excellent field commander, but he micromanaged constantly and frequently ignored chains of command and communication to get stuff he wanted to do done. Which works fine at smaller scales, but when you're working with Army Groups of hundreds of thousands of men, meddling like that just spreads mass confusion and actually slows things down, as well as angering subordinates. He also constantly overreached, which was fine when he faced incompetent or less capable foes, but the moment he ran into another good-brilliant commander (depending on your opinions on Montgomery) he got first beaten at his own game defensively speaking, then promptly smashed back across the desert with his tail between his legs as Allied forces pursued him using (often superior) versions of his own tactics. Rommel was a great general, but he wasn't some wizard who could miraculous command in every situation better than anyone else. Both Guderian and Manstein were better strategic/theatre scale commanders than him, and in fact I'd argue Guderian was also a superior field officer.

Nah, the French would've still taken the wrong lessons from the war, assuming the war even lasted long enough for any lessons to be learned. If the Battle of the Marne had led to total German victory, then you'd still have seen the end of the French emphasis on elan in favor of more defensive tactics. This'd be even more prevalent assuming constraints were placed on French rearmament after the cessation of hostilities.

That and in modern times it is infinitely more effective to engage in proxy wars to undermine your political rivals rather than engage in full scale war. Less resources required to have a dickwaving contest with Russia in some middle eastern shithole than it is for America and Russia to butt heads full-on. Etc etc.

Imagine that the Ottoman Empire is intact and reasonably strong when petroleum becomes a really big deal. That's huge!

The Ottomans were on the brink of collapse regardless of how they fared in WWI, much like the Russians.

Actually, if you're Chinese, you'll be treated worst. Look up Japanese atrocities against the local Chinese population in other countries they conquered in WWII

Wait wait wait.

Why would Japan benefit from all this?

Oh, haha, typo. Meant to say that yeah, the Chinese would fare the worst from this.

Japanese empire was a growing power in WWI; they sided with the allies to seize minor German territories in the Pacific. Even if Germany won, they probably wouldn't be able to do shit about a growing empire half a world away. Now, imagine that there was no WWII to stop the Japanese Empire, and it just kept growing.

>Russia would also remain an Empire

Nah gonna happen.

As for OP? When does Germany win the war and how? The Empire system was already decrepit as a mere continental squabble killed it so ignore the chumps screaming about that. But when and how the Allies go down changes things considerably.

That I find somewhat questionable. Germany would probably demand some concessions from the British and Japanese for being on the losing side and would gain some Far East colonies.

This isn't even getting into the question of whether Germany as the victor decides to place limits on the strength of her opponents. What if Germany decides that they get bits of the Royal Navy or at least limits the power of it? If Germany becomes the predominant naval power of the world then it isn't inconceivable they would take a greater interest in the Far East.