I have to think that even if the Germans won WWI, sometime before the U.S. entered the war and before the Russian revolution, there would have still been some kind of WWII.

If Germany won and France/Britain surrendered I believe it would have basically been the Treaty of Versallies in reverse.  

Half of France would have belonged to Germany.  The royal navy would have been dismantled.  Both of those countries would have been in ruin financially.  

Perhaps England and France would have been breaking treaties and invading countries by 1940.

Not very likely I think. Had ze Germans won it would be a different world. From what I have read the situiation would probably be much better. If only because the Germans wouldn't have done the moronic act of sending Lenin to Petrograd on a sealed train!

Oh sure the kaiser would have tried to overreach as he always did. But even if the war had lasted say six months I don't think military commanders or civilian governments would be in a terrible rush to crank the meat grinder back up.

If ze bullfrog had ze wings!

If Germany had won, no Hitler at least.  On the other hand, by 1917 Germany planned to annex (outright) Luxemburg, Belgium, Poland, Byellorussia and part of the Ukraine, the Baltic States, much of Northern France including the channel coast, and huge portions of Africa and China.  France was to become, essentially a satellite, along with what was left of Russia, Scandinavia, and the Netherlands, and of course all their 'allies' in the war were to be "fully integrated" into the German economy.  IF they actually succeeded in doing all of that, it's hard to see how even the US would have been able to challenge them.

As far as 'better' that depends if you happen to like absolute military rule, and given the German record in Belgium and Africa, I'm not so sure the Nazis were a whole lot worse.

Uhh, Germany sending Lenin to Russia was one of the best moves they could have made in the entire war.  Transferring over a million men to the western front?  Hell yeah I'd call that a damn good strategy.  As of early 1918, Germany still could have won the war.  Ultimately the problem was Germany stretching their lines too far too fast that the supply lines couldn't keep up and of course general morale was bad for all sides.  



One thing that would be a very positive outcome if Germany had prevailed would have been the victory would be shared with the Ottomans and they most certainly wouldn't have disintegrated the way they did after the war.  They would have a newfound confidence in their nation, and suddenly find they have new sources of influx capital as victors.  The Ottomans knew how to repress the shit out of arabs and we definitely wouldn't be having a lot of the problems that are so prevalent in the Middle East today.



Lastly, if Germany had won and some sort of peace accord reached in late 1918 with all sides, the Kaiser would still be in power.  After just winning the most devastating war in human history, Wilhelm most likely would have come to the aid of Tsar and helped crush the commies.



This event in my opinion is one major point in history that I believe we would ALL have been better off if Germany had won.



 

Communism was going to happen somewhere anyway. There were "healthy" movements for it all over the world at the time.

NAZI's per se, maybe not so much. But a jackboot of some brand I think is just as inevitable.

The question is where they would have taken root and what consequences because of that.

But if Germany won before the fall of the Tsar, there wouldn't be a communist/anti-war movement to worry about.  At least it there were it would have been crushed by the Russians.



 

No Hitler, no holocaust, no post war exodus, no Israel...would the Middle East even look anything like it does today? Would it still be British Colonies? Would there have been a Soviet Union trying to undermine non-Socialist governments all over the world? Would there have been Soviet support for Iran? Would there even be Islamic extremism?



Would there have been a Socialist revolution in China? Would Socialism have spread to the Korean peninsula? Would Socialism have spread to South East Asia?



Would there have been a Socialist revolution in Cuba? Would Socialism have spread to Central America, threatening the stability of democratic governments? Would there have been economic crises in Central America? Would there have been terrorist groups, persecutions, Socialist uprisings leading to the formation of criminal networks and gangs? Would we have an immigration crisis today?



Would there have been a Soviet program to infiltrate, subvert and indoctrinate in American universities? Would we have a nation that at all resembles the shit show of deviants, socialists and weirdos that we have today?

We had no business getting into that war. There were no good guys really and it was a land and power grab by all involved.  The problems created by that awful war reverberate to this day.

Moronic over the long term. When you are in a conflict where tens of thousands are dying every day acts that would be utterly unspeakable in peacetime. Or even a low intensity war seem downright appealing. Even if it may mean your and your people's ultimate doom in the long term.

Germany cannablized it's male population and an awful lot of its infrastructure during World War One. It was effectively destroyed by World War Two.

Uh yes there would have been.  Communists in that part of the world don't celebrate the Great October Revolution (of 1917) for nothing.  I also have to agree with what the above poster said.  At that time, communism was trying to take root in damn near anyplace in the world that would have it, most especially with what we today consider blue collar type jobs.  If it didn't take hold in Russia, it would have found someplace else to give it a try.  Communist revolutions against the Turks were a likely area.  



 

A thousand times this!

Your argument here is what exactly?  I'm not seeing anything.  Name one nation in time of a major war that does not cannibalize its male population.  



Contrary to a lot of history books, the amount of men and material sent by the USA during that war wasn't that much.  By the time we started landing men in Europe in the spring of 1918, we're talking a couple hundred thousand already there versus multiple millions on the other side.   Sure we had plenty more to send, but we didn't have great landing craft and carriers that we traditionally associate with World War II.  England and France (although it pains me to admit that last one) truly did hold their own for the most part.





 

No doubt, we've been fighting WWI for over 100 years now in a manner of speaking if you look at the cascade effect that it had on the world. Almost every single conflict of the last century has its roots in WWI.



 

Volkswagon wouldn't have had to cheat on emissions

Yes but I believe it was enough for a tipping point, especially at such a strategic crossroads that 1917 was.  Just the effect on morale alone was tremendous for the allied powers.

The amount of American men and equipment, and even battles the we fought in isn't the crux of the problem with our involvement; the problem was how the "peace" afterwards was handled and the US and Wilson specifically had a major hand in that.



 

That could make for a great alternate history novel

That's actually my whole point, perhaps I'm not using the proper words.  Morale was bad on both sides.  Like I said, Germany still could have won as late as March 1918 with their huge offensive, but again morale was terrible and it's understandable.  Living in a fucking trench for a year or more, keeping your food away from rats every day while arty explodes around you at all hours.  Fuck that shit.  No wonder so many guys went crazy on all sides.  I couldn't do that.



 

I see what you're saying, and yes, the conditions imposed by the allies were nothing short of being completely dishonorable, emasculating and downright insulting.  I liken to how the GOP establishment of today likes to use procedural moves in Congress to buttfuck the new up-and-coming conservatives every chance they get for no other reason than spite and certainly not because they have our nation's best interests at heart.  These old guys, as world leaders, wanted to buttfuck Germany because the enemy cost them so much.  Well guess what, the allies cost Germany and her crew a lot too.  



If it were the other way around certainly I would expect any victor, including Germany, to demand certain reparations ranging from monetary reimbursement to territorial claims similar to what was negotiated in Brest-Litovsk.



 

That's unlikely with regard to France; loss of territory and anything else captured (besides people, of course) would likely have been the worst imposed in an outright victory by the Central Powers.  If any one country would have been punished, it likely would have been Serbia, probably at the insistence of the Austro-Hungarians, since their dastardly actions and refusal to allow investigations which would have revealed their involvement in the assassination were the causus belli for the Austro-Hungarians.  They'd want to settle that matter as best as they could, I would think.

Regarding other countries, I don't see it happening at all.  U.K. would not have disarmed and there would be no leverage to force it to accept such a treaty.  Contrary to popular belief, surrender or loss in a war does not inherently mean total surrender and submission.  Many wars or battles have ended with a negotiated settlement or a conditional surrender.  Any country not occupied by the Central Powers and not easily taken by them subsequent to refusal of such terms would not have had such terms imposed on them.  

Regarding the situation on the ground in reality, if it had ended before the U.S. entered the war, it likely would have a negotiated settlement.  That's the direction things were going in before the U.S. joined, ending any incentive for the Allies to negotiate.  Had such a settlement occurred, I have a hard time seeing anything like WWII starting any time in the near future.  Wars in Europe?  Sure, but that's another matter.  If France had lost territory and chose to go to war with it like it had before WWI as well, it would likely have been just a war between it and Germany, not some Continent-wide or global conflict.

Had the Germans won and kept their colonies Japan had seized or got by treaty at the end of the war, or, if necessary, fought and won those lost back (should the Japanese have refused to vacate them), the Pacific War would have at minimum been delayed significantly, and if it happened at all, Germany might well have been allied with countries like the U.S., the Netherlands, the U.K., China, and France against Japan.

The idea that the Imperial Germans were not a whole lot worse than the Nazis is pretty silly, although of those Americans I've talked to that have more than a passing awareness of WWI, the notion is rather common.

Uhh you do realize that Britain was at one point very close to facing the prospect of starvation because U-boats were sinking so much of their supply, right?
And who says Germany needed total defeat of Britain and France?  Hell just call for a cease fire and engage in settlement talks.  I guess the reason I sort of "pull" so much for Germany in WW1 isn't because I wanted to see them dominate France or Britain, but rather to keep Imperial Germany intact as a major world power.  They definitely would have no problems taking on the commies and I think the U.S. would have found a new ally in the long run.
 

I would say the Austro-Hungarians had a legitimate causus belli with regard to Serbia.  They were morally in the right there, and documents discovered post-war verified as much (Serbian government involvement in the assassination plot and other subversive activities within the Austro-Hungarian Empire's mostly Slavic regions).  If there was a "right side," it would have to be their side.

Hmm, it pains you to admit that the French put everything they had into the conflict? I don't have any connection or special affection for the French people but I would never dismiss their resolve during WW1. Much of the war happened on their soil. This was a conflict that changed the face of the modern world, and France was hit really really hard by it. But I think this has gone completely off the original topic.

FWW



Fuck Woodrow Wilson



 

Ummm not sure where you're coming up with all of that with my post.  It was not a slight to the French at all.

ETA: Oh my bad, I thought that was directed at my post.  Sorry.

I don't really disagree.

Yes. From what I understand the European colonial empires would have started falling apart in short order after the expense and chaos of the war. Said movements probably would have been much more diverse in nature, much more nationalistic that's socialistic. But the socialists and probably even a few communists would have had an influence.

Interesting considering Marx's views that communism could only be done in industrialized countries. Yet most of the chaos caused by his ideas has been done in developing and undeveloped counties. (So far.)

Sorry. I was referring to TexasSmooths comment not yours. The quote system messed me up. And I'm distracted. I should probably go do something else. WW1 just gets me really riled up.

I also doubt most Americans realize the huge support that existed in this country for Germany at the beginning of the war, especially considering our large visible German populations at the time.

What you need that for Tommy, ze Germans?

France and England both were damn near the point of collapse, the only thing that saved them was US Intervention. Both the British and French said so, US troops and supplies tipped the balance in the favor of the Allies.  

Definitely not.  They just see "the Hun" or see similar uniforms and think "proto-Nazis."  Kind of like how most of GD seems to think that German people are genetically and/or culturally inclined towards genocide and mass murder and always have been, basically that Germans are suppressed Nazis.

The British could have just withdrawn in the event of a loss on the Continent.  They were not going to be placed in a situation where they are outright conquered or surrendered unconditionally or to unfavourable conditions.

The Ottomans murdered countless Christains, screw them.

If by 'wasn't that much' you mean 'over 2 million before the armistice' then maybe.  Of course, more than the actual troops involved, the prospect of up to 5 million US troops in Europe by the end of 1919 convinced the Germans that they had no chance whatsoever.  It's hard to over-estimate the morale effect US combat troops had in the 1918, as well as taking over more than 100km of the front by the end of the war.

The problem wasn't with Austria-Hungary and Serbia, it was with Germany actively expanding the war- while its impossible to know now, chances are the Russians would have backed down from actually declaring war on Austria, and in any case, Britain wouldn't have joined without the German invasion of Belgium.  The Schlieffen plan was a perfect example of putting operational concerns over strategic judgement.

The Royal Navy wouldn't have gone anywhere. No where. You would have had to destroy the Royal Navy to have gotten rid of it. Using subs to pacify it is another story.