+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 46 to 49 of 49

Thread: Post WWI scenario with Central Powers victory?

  1. #46
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Dec 06
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    331
    Country: Canada
    A Central Powers victory would really mean a German victory, because neither Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, nor Bulgaria would have been strong enough to take full advantage of the big shift in the world balance-of-power that would result.

    The Germans wanted to establish themselves as a true World Power, on par with the continent-sized USA or globe-girdling British Empire. "Go Big or Go Under" would sum up the point-of-view. If you don't have enough population, enough raw materials, or a big enough market, you just won't rate in the competitive world of the future!

    They weren't all wrong. They predicted that if Germany could not "break out" then the Anglo-Saxon powers would dominate world trade and finance, while a modernizing Asia would loom in the East. Either way, Germany gets dwarfed. Not far off the mark, really. While the century between their time and ours has seen many events they didn't predict, nevertheless the global outcome wouldn't have surprised a German arch-nationalist of, say, 1910.

    A Central Powers victory in the Great War would have placed Germany in the hegemonic position in western Eurasia. That's why France, Russia, and Britain all went to the wall to try to stop them.

    While a Central Powers victory would be humiliating to the French, France would still have retained its independence and most of its empire. However, its industry and finance, along with those of the Low Countries, would be "integrated" on terms favourable to Germany. The Germans might have been able to appeal to anglophobic sentiment in France to get cooperation on naval and imperial issues. Basically France would become a "junior partner" in a German-led European system--like an EU that could actually make decisions.

    The biggest losers would be the Slavic peoples. Sorry, folks, make way for the spread of "civilization"! Lebensraum was not a Nazi invention; the notion of utilizing Russia and the Ukraine as areas for future Germanic settlement was shared by a lot of pre-WWI German nationalists. The notion was that German emigrants could go east rather than to the Americas, and that way the German nation would not "lose blood." And why should those backward Russians be permitted to keep all those lands and resources anyway? No, only German settlement and investment could ever possibly make the most out of that vast region. However, unlike the Nazis in the East, a German victory in the Great War would probably resulted in a more generous German overlordship in Eastern Europe.

    While the navalist school in Germany would push for additions to the overseas tropical empire, I doubt that they would get their way. Instead, I think attempts would be made to conciliate the British by offering them chunks of the French Empire--at least until Europe was consolidated. A German push into the Middle East would be unnecessary, since the acquisition (or investment penetration) of the Caucasus would provide all the necessary oil--Baku was already flourishing pre-WWI.

    When you think about these consequences, it's not hard to understand why the USA eventually felt compelled to go to war. Their first choice would have been to let those "damn fool Europeans" keep killing each other forever, but in the end it was better for the USA to keep a divided Europe rather than risk it being dominanated by a single power. The US policy towards Eurasia isn't too much different than Britain's towards the "Continent", just on a much bigger scale: never let one power dominate it.
    Last edited by cape_royds; 28 Oct 07, at 08:38.

  2. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    03 Sep 07
    Location
    Ruritania
    Posts
    36
    Country: United States
    "Follow the money!"
    The USA went to war for the simplest of all reasons to a capitalist economy. Britain and France had borrowed so much American money to purchase munitions and other war goods (despite the much vaunted but actuall non-existent American neutrality) that J.P. Morgan etc. convinced Wilson that a Central Powers victory would bring about a deep recession in the USA.

    Most Americans (the Irish and the Germans) would have preferred a Central Powers victory, but the Anglophiles that dominated the monied class and the "intelligentsia" were able to fool the electorate in the elections of 1916 (He kept us out of war!) and then show their true colors once it was over. Wilson's cynicism was especially apparent when he tried to persuade the British to postpone the trials of the Irish captured in the Easter uprising to avoid antagonizing the Irish who were so important to the Democrats.

    Only the crazies (who had no influence) in the pan-German movement had any interest in colonizing the East.
    Even Fischer, who is certainly not one to minimize any "proto-Nazi" tendencies or policies doesn't buy into any sort of Lebensraum colonization scheme. Niall Ferguson in The Pity of War makes essentially the same point as you with a post war Europe organized into a German dominated EU.

  3. #48
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Dec 06
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    331
    Country: Canada
    The reason why the Allies (principally the UK) could borrow so much, so easily from America in the first place was that large and powerful factions in the USA preferred an Allied victory right from the outset.

    Why? Because Britain was a "sated power" with whom the USA had already reached an economic and military modus vivendi, whereas a victorious Germany would be a huge unknown.

    Once the loans got big enough, nothing but a decisive victory could possibly get those loans ever paid back. But the war just dragged on and on. The "sunk costs problem" arose. The USA had to keep lending in order to have a chance of getting anything repaid.

    Ultimately, the USA had to enter the war to ensure an Allied victory. The debts by that time were economically impossible for anyone to repay, but politically impossible to cancel. In turn this led to the farce of US banks lending to Germany to pay reparations so that the Allies could repay war debts to the USA!

    But that gets ahead of the story here. The motivation for the USA was indeed geopolitical: they did not want Europe dominated by any one power. It's just that they thought they could achieve that aim simply by subsidizing the Allies. However, they eventually had to go fight.

    I disagree that a majority of American people wanted a Central Powers' victory. While the recent German and Irish immigrant populations were large, vocal, and anti-British, these people were by no means any sort of majority of Americans.

    There was always a strong pro-Allied sentiment in the USA. Very popular politicians such as Theodore Roosevelt advocated a US entry into the war from the very beginning.

    It's interesting to consider what might have happened had the Republican party not disintegrated in the Taft-Roosevelt feud of 1912, because that's the principal reason TR wasn't in the White House when the war broke out in 1914.

    Regarding German eastern ambitions, settlement is only one of the themes. Economic colonization was another, i.e. monopolizing Russia as a export market and place of investment, with other powers' capital and goods shut out. The "crazies" you refer to were the ones who wanted a pure German empire in the east; they were, as you say, a fringe. But the overall idea of a German political and economic domination of the Slavic territories was mainstream among German nationalists. So I reiterate that the biggest losers by far from a Central Powers victory in WWI would have been the Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles.

    As for Ferguson, he errs in thinking that a German dominated Europe would be safe for Great Britain. Maybe in the short term, but not in the long term, which is why every British government went to the utmost to stop Germany (or any one power) from ruling the continent. It is true that Britain lost its empire in the process of denying Germany the dominance of Europe, but the American dominance the UK had to accept in exchange has proven tolerable, helped no doubt by ethnic kinship.
    Last edited by cape_royds; 04 Nov 07, at 06:01.

  4. #49
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    09 Feb 05
    Posts
    1,781
    Cape Royds is correct. Germany did have Pan-Hegemonic goals (at least once they had thought through the consequences of a victory... which happened after the war had started not before), however most continental European nations did. France needed a quick win against Germany to retake Alsace-Lorraine and re-establish a favorable states system in Europe (much like what existed prior to the 7 years war, or in between 1850 and 1870). Russia wished for a quick victory to cement their hegemony in Eastern Europe. And both the United States and Britian wished for Europe to remain divided, because a divided Europe was not a significant long term threat.

    The line of thinking in those days was that there were going to be 3-4 great powers within the next 50 years (from 1900-1950). The United States and Russia were automatic members of that club due to their size and position. The strongest of the European nations (possibly Britain, Germany, or France) could also maintain that "Great Power" status, but those who didn't advance would be eclipsed by the continental giants. "Advancing" in this case is the expansion of industry and market share in other nations in order to outpace ones rivals... to do that one needs favorable trade treaties.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. @ I don't think US should be the leader of the world..
    By MIKEMUN in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08 Dec 09,, 19:31
  2. The Causes & Consequences of Strategic Failure in Afghanistan & Iraq
    By lulldapull in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 20 May 08,, 09:48
  3. Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare
    By troung in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 23 Feb 08,, 01:59
  4. Articles and links for the Military Professional
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 20 Nov 06,, 16:28
  5. Synopsis of Palestinian Politics Post Arafat
    By Leader in forum International Politics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10 Nov 04,, 08:05

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts