"What if Germany had defeated France in WW1" Topic

Following on from the interesting thread 'Was it Inevitable' what if the Schleiffen (sp.) Plan had been executed successfully, Paris had been captured and France surrended in 1914. Germany could've swiftly dealt with Russia and with the US remaining neutral, Britain would have been effectively isolated.
What were Germany's intentions had this happened? In my limited knowledge, they did not seem to be bent on conquest and/or the dreadful avenues that Hitler proceeded to take, so how would matters have concluded?
An honourable peace, albeit at the expense of Serbia's existence and maybe further territorial gains from France and/or some of her overseas colonies?

The effective destruction of the Entente Cordiale would have long term strategic consequences for Britain. A partial return to Napoleonic times with most of the Continent dominated by a solitary competitor. Another area of concern would be Austria Hungary with a free hand in the Balkans, bound to cause problems to Britain as far as the Med. was concerned and the back door to India.

Britain only became involved AFTER the Germans invaded Belgium, and the Germans, by their standards reasonably politely, even asked the Belgians to let the German Army through without starting a fight – which request the Belgians refused.

Ig th BElgians had agreed to let the Germans through there would have been no British involvement. Would the French have had the reserves to perform the 'Miracle of the Marne' where all the Parisian taxis moved the reserve to the Marne River?

For France it would have been the Franco-Prussian War all over again. Depending on how quickly they caved in there may have been relatively little territorial loss to Metropolitan France, but indeed there were a variety of colonies up for grabs & peacetime French politics would have become even more chaotic. Perhaps we would be talking of the Second French Revolution rather than the Russian Civil War/ Revolution?

1. Belgium may have gone to Germany – this (with the large German fleet) may have meant the UK would have looked for help: Japan?

2. The tank would probably not been invented and planes developed slowly. (As a sideline, and on an ironic note, would modern wargamers cope?)

3. It is Russia that would suffer most – another defeat:
revolution (maybe Marxist in ways) and several of her recently conquered stares trying to break free – causing a Russian backlash in such as Kazan – would the UK get involved? (Doubtless the UK would be immeshed in Afghani politics again anyway).

4. Turkey and her Empire would survive. No middle eastern issues!!!!

5. Japan might go on to attack China.

stares: states !

Criminentlies, where do I start?

Germany would have had no reason to send Lenin back to Russia if the war had ended that quickly, so there would have been no USSR and no Cold War.

Germany probably would have claimed a few French colonies as spoils of war, increasing German influence in Africa and elsewhere. Ho Chi Minh versus Ludendorff at Dien Bien Phu – who wins?

The absence of trench warfare would have delayed or stalled the invention of poison gas and the tank. Horsed cavalry would have seen no diminution in its importance.

Aircraft and submarines would have remained untested. The swift progress in their development would have been slowed. There probably would be no aircraft carriers.

No German defeat means no Versailles treaty, which means no German economic disaster, which means no reason for Hitler to gain power, with all the usual implications. There would have been no Tiger tanks, ever.

Without WWI's draining of the world's economies, there would have been no reason for a Washington Naval Treaty. We naval gamers would get to use the humongous battlewagons that, in our reality, were never built. I got dibs on the British G3 class!

France as the demon on the world stage, rather than Nazi Germany.

A "Man on the White Horse" who does not chicken out at the last minute. De Gaulle, perhaps?

French anit-Semitism on a large scale. This was the land of Dreyfuss, remember. There would be nowhere to hide it, like Germany had in Poland. The very heavy losses in the Battle of the Frontiers would have to be blamed on somebody, and why not the traditional scapegoat? The French were GOOD at anti-Semitism.

World War 2, more or less on schedule.
American involvement? Probably limited to the Pacific.
As Robert Graves has Claudius point out, the poisons must rise to the top to be eradicated.

I agree that a French nation humiliated but not bled white stands a good chance of turning towards a fascist type of totalitarianism bent on revenge. The UK doeesn't bleed her economy into the dust and returns to her traditional role of balancing power in Europe and maintaining the Empire.

The US having stayed out drifts further towards a Pacific focused strategy but remains isolationist and militarily weak outside of the fleet. Germany victorious but evicted quickly from the Pacific when Japan takes her colonies in the Marshalls and Tsingtao possibly takes Vietnam as a spoil of war and begins contesting the Japanese and/or British for influence in Asia. German guarantees/protection for the Dutch oilfields certainly makes a Germany v Japan pacific clash as possibility.

No train for Lenin, no grinding war just a quick humiliation leaves Russia seething. A right wing overthrow of the Tsar with his son as a puppet for a revanchist military probably leaves a Franco-Russian alliance intact and as with real history, WW2 is simply WW1 second verse with weapons development slowed or altered.

If Britian was on the losing side… would they have 'fought on' at sea, trying to raise Europe against Germany; or (having lost the BEF and scared of a 'sudden descent' invasion by Germany) is it forced into a humiliating peace inflicted upon it by a Kaiser who demands the fleet and large chunks of Empire? I'm guessing the former, so we would have a long drawn out war (alternating hot and cold) which might have prevented the Kaiser from enjoying his new, ex-French, colonies.

If Britain had not got involved in the first place, I could see French enmity being turned on Britain, with an early formation of a Berlin-Paris alliance.

The range of possibilities is vast, and I could probably come up with ten more scenarios. How long could the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires last? Both appear to have been riven with weaknesses, and their fall appears to have been inevitable, but we should not discount just how devastating the pressures imposed by the Great War were.

The lack of military developments on land, sea and air is intriguing, though.

Possibly the most interesting area of speculation is in regard to what would have happened with the Turks and the middle east.

Doug

Sounds like it would have been a good thing.

I'll take a fascists France over Nazi Germany any day.

(Who would you rather go to war with? !)

I think that most of the peace negotiations would be between Germany and France. Even if England participated in the fight, once France was lost the reason for continued fighting is over. Germany would hit France for economic recompense, either colonial in nature or just monetary.
If Britain were to attempt to blockade the Germans, access to all French ports would probibly be part of the mix. The Germans would probibly still institute submarine warfare to emplace their own blockade on England.
Given the close ties of the British Monarcy to Germany and the Belgian question, it is possible that England would come quickly to terms. Remember, all of these Western European nations were dragged into an Eastern European conflict. France will probibly suffer an upheaval in her political structure and some economic hardship, but, would it be so devastating (as with the economic burden placed upon Germany at the end of the war) that the economic depression makes its way thru all of Europe and across the ocean to cause the American Great Depression. Also, no great expenditure of funds to build the Maginot Line. Offensive action is still seen as the means to win. The same "lessons" learned in Europe from the German Wars of Unification are reinforced. So, somewhere in the future will be the "First" world war with all of its associated blood letting.
In the East, with the initial defeats in Prussia, and now facing the total might of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, would Russia attempt to go it alone? If it did, this is where the "First" world war would be fought, the question will be, will the Western nations learn the lessons, or will they be scoffed at as the undisiplined Russians doing what they do best, throw bodies at a problem. It is very possible that Germany and Austro-Hungary would come out of the war with the best trained troops and leaders in Western Europe.
Lots of questions for speculation, a wonderfull topic for discussion.

Would a victorious Germany have prevented the rise of Hitler?

Yes. It's hard to imagine Hitler getting any votes with nothing to be against.
No Versailles Treaty, no "back-stabbing" Jews and Communists and socialists.

The Germans win in 1914 and impose yet more 1870-style repartions. Germany also demands territorial concessions in the form of French colonies and the hand over of several warships to expand the Imperial Fleet. The British start cranking out more battleships, desperately trying to keep ahead of Germany.

The war with Russia keeps going and Britain is desperately searching for allies to fight on.

It's quite likely that the Russians will be defeated sooner or later. The likeliest scenario being the Tsar suing for peace and handing Germany parts of Russia

What a very interesting premise! let's see – no Italian involvement, no rise of Benito Mussolini or Fascism.

German scientists – especially German Jewish scientists – remain in Germany, giving German scientific research the means to create an atomic weapons programme by the late 1930's.

Winston Churchill remains a political outsider of little influence, Lloyd George is just another obscure Liberal MP and General French is revered/reviled as "The Man Who Brought The BEF Home".

With little in the way of casualties, Britain is just as willing to get involved in a later European war as before, except that with no experience of mass mobilisation of industry, manpower, commerce, etc., her contribution will be very slow in arriving. However – a second-order counterfactual – Lord Kitchener will remain alive, well and
ready to deliver his wrath upon the stupid.

No gas warfare – so the first party to initiate it in the post 1914 world will have a profound tactical advantage.

Given the fact that Russia didn't fold when Napoleon I captured Moscow, might not the French nation have gone totally ballistic with rage if Paris fell in 1914? With a crippled France barely hanging on, just like Belgiu, that leaves the British Empire in an interesting predicament. That might make the desirability of Eastern sideshows like Palestine, Mesopotamia and Gallipoli less tractive. If the Imperial General Staff has to scrape up every resource from the Empire to hold on in France, that raises some interesting questions.

Then too maybe some good luck might favor the allies, in that either Turkey doesn't get involved or the RN manages to clear a passage for supplies to Russia.

Ummm, they didn't go totally ballistic in 1940, why would they have done so in 1914?

couldn't Russia have been easily resupplied through Vladivostok?
With no U.S. intervention, the boom and bust cycle of the war economy never would have occurred. Industrial expansion would have continued apace without the brake of "strategic reserve" on resource extraction. The wide open business environment would have spurred invention from the likes of Tesla and his ilk, thus the promise of superscience fulfilled and there is a lunar colony by 1948. The U.S. isolationist policies remaining unchallenged, it never gets involved with any european conflict and thus feels no moral obligation as the sole surviving economy after a major conflict, thus no Team America: World Police.

How does that grab ya?

Very interesting topic! OK, my take.

war ending:

England gets it's men out Dunkirk style and hunkers down in the home Islands. Germany and England make an uneasy peace. Germany annexes France this time to remove the possibilty of another war. England and Japan grab what they can from the destroyed French Empire. Russia fights on alone and loses badly. Results are similar to the real war, revolution. However, Germany also gets land concessions along the western frontier. Italy faces the possibility of a 2 front war and decides to make peace. Austria/Hungary swallows the Balkans and gets small concessions from Italy. However, insurgencies in the slavic lands cause a drawn out insurgent struggle that cripples Austria in 10 years. Japan continues it's rise but definitely gains a more German feel to it's naval doctrine rather than English. The US stays about the same (big navy with a small army), but doesn't develop naval air or motorized warfare as quickly.

general developments:
Tanks develop (clearly people like HG Wells foresaw them as likely), but are much lighter and faster. Maybe wheeled rather than tracked. Tank doctrine is based on replacing the scouting role of cav that were clearly shown in the opening battles to be near useless in the age of machine guns.
Aircraft development slows, while more airships are built. Navies stay based around the battle line with resulting larger battleships and cruisers. However, increasing costs and a growing arms race between the British and German Empires leads to either a "Washington treaty" at a later date or a new war in the 20's to 30's. Russia, italy, England and Japan form an alliance as tensions grow. Germany responds with a renewed central powers alliance with Turkey and what is left of Austria. Germany gets involved in foreign adventures Spain, Africa, and south Asia.

2nd war: Eventually, the German foreign adventures brings a new world war. However, this time Germany is a great naval power with a great empire. Again, the Americans are the wild card with the world's 3rd largerst fleet. Which side do they back? My guess Germany. Without much aircraft development, The combined British and Japanese navies would be the greater threat to the US mainland. Plus Canada would be a tempting prize. The war would be quite different in that none of the major opposing players have land borders (except a weak Russia and strong Germany). At least at the beginning, the war would be mainly fought at sea and in the extended empire. Only at the point of one of the major players losing at sea would they then get invaded.

Definite book material here!

"Ummm, they didn't go totally ballistic in 1940, why would they have done so in 1914?"

=> They did in 1870 though which resulted into La Commune being established in Paris.

In 1914, after 40 years of "para bellum" attitude and the will to recover the lost provinces of Alsace & Lorraine in France, I sincerly doubt that fall of Paris would have ended the war. Have a look to the massive casualties in 1914 and 1915 and you'll see how determined where French to erase 1870 humiliation.

In 1940, the mass slaughter of 1914-18 had left France shocked by war (looked at how defensive was the French army doctrine), Alsace and Lorraine had been regained and French army honor had been restored. "Dying for Dantzig" was not as moving as liberating part of the French territory in my view. Plus I think no one had really given a thought at what Nazi Germany could do post her victory…

Concerning the rise or not of Fascism in Europe, I think we must not forget that 1929 great depression and impact in Europe in 1930 also played a pivotal role.

With France wipped out quickly in 1914, it would have even reinforce Prussian and Kaiser's warmongering and reinfocre Whilem's will to challenge and take on British Empire in my view.

Interesting "food for thought" this "what-if"…

>With France wipped out quickly in 1914, it would have
>even reinforce Prussian and Kaiser's warmongering and >reinfocre Whilem's will to challenge and take on
>British Empire in my view.

Well said.
A French defeat in 1914 would have brougth the same results as 1940, i.e an isolated Great Britain, unable to stop the German rise to world power alone.

Germans had even greater plans for French colonies than for French territory itself, apart from a few strategic places (Briey iron mines, Eastern fortresses, Channel ports).
With the German taking most, if not all, of the French colonial empire, and iron/coal fields, the odds would have been very low IMHO for Great Britain to survive as the world power it was on July 30th, 1914.

The US would have probably made good business with Germany, provided the latter let them alone in America and Asia, and Russia would have stopped war very shortly, though at the cost of its Westernmost marches.

One comment struck me, about Belgium letting the German army
'marching' through its territory.
Germans had not plans to simply 'march through Belgium' but to transform it in an other 'Luxemburg' Duchy.
Not sure if it would have been good news for Great
Britain either.

Actually, from some comments on this thread, I have a feeling like some don't fully understand that WW2 saw only two real winners (i.e world super power) the US, and USSR.
A 1914 'Entente' defeat, BEF present or not, would have simply switched cards between 1914 Germany and 1945 USSR.

A direct victory from attacking France only through its Eastern borders wasn't possible for Geramns, that's why they choose to attack though Belgium.
If marching through Belgium, they would have to keep control of their supply/communication lines, even for a 'short' war (peace treaty making can take up to several months, see 1870).
Great Britain didn't joined the fay in Augus 1914 because it cared about France <VBG>, but because letting Germans invade Belgium (even for 'sometime') and defeating France was the next thhing to a death arrest.
Exactly like in 1940.
No matter what 'Duce' or 'Caudillo' the French might have inherited as a dictator, no matter what French jews might have suffered, a 1914 French defeat would have meant the end of 'Rule Brittania'.
Like 1940 did.

As a side note regarding the French and Jews, there are some enligthening data on the German army (read Prussian ruling class) and Jews in Kitchen's 'The German officer corp, 1870-1914' (Oxford).
However 'good' against Jews the French might have been, Captain Dreyfus was cleared of charge a few years after his first trial, and ranked back in the army with the Legion d'Honneur.
He was an divisional artillery general during WW1.

French high ranking officer corp included nearly 10% of Jews in 1914, with a few generals, most of them in the artillery and engineers though.
Not sure if many armies of this time had similar numbers of Jews (according to Kitchen, this wasn't the case with the Geramn army).
Anyway, if antisemitism was not existant in other developped countries, that's good news.

FWIW, it guess any European country suffering a defeat the scope of 1918 Germany or 1940 France would have blamed Jews for it, unless Jews have previously joined with those who have taken control of the said country, like 1918 Bolchevists.

At last, I guess no one forced Germany to go on the offensive in the West in 1914.
Considering the 'successes' of BOTH French and British to repulse Germans from their field fortifications during four years in 1914-1918, I doubt the German would have taken a great risk by staying on the defensive in the west, while they inflicted a strategical defeat onto the Russians with hardly 20% of their numbers in Tannenberg.

No invasion in France and Belgium in 1914 would have meant no British involvement and no political support for lost Provinces reconquering for the French (French spring 1914 elections saw a clear victory of socialists, after a fifteen years long 'reign' of 'Radicaux-Socialists').

Defeating the Russians with all their might, the Germans would have ended the war in a matter of a few weeks.
This option couldn't have brougth them any opportunity on colonial and Channel strategic gains though.

But what's the matter, if being only defensive ?

Would not the US have continued to be agressive in Latin America? Was not Hoover and FDR's shift towards being a "Good Neighbor" rather than a (non-Orwellian) "Big Brother" due to trying to keep Latin America from flirting with Fascism?

Would not have Japan gotten involved on mainland Asia even quicker what with the US focused on Latin America? No one to challenge them on China (think the Panay incident) they'd probably move into there. Maybe the clash would come over SouthEast Asia or Dutch East Indies with Germany playing the role the US did?

As for GB, did not Niall Ferguson make a huge argument that a successful Germany in WWI would have put Europe on the road to a Berlin-centered EU and thus GB would have to choose between it (his argument) or orienting towards the US?