Opinion of Kaiser Willhelm II

[Derpist]

If he had won WWI, WWII and the Bolshevik revolution would never have happened.

Uh, Kaiser Wilhelm doesn't win without the Bolshevik Revolution knocking Russia out of the war.

A German victory in WW1 would be better than IRL just because there'd be no Nazis, but it'd still be pretty bad. Germany was a military dictatorship by 1917 that was drowning in war debt. The only way it could stave off total economic collapse (like IRL) would be totally pillage Eastern Europe and France in a treaty infinitely worse than Versailles, which it totally would do.

Europe would thus be an economic basketcase, totally cut-off from the rest of the world too, with Germany as only somewhat less disastrous than its neighbors (who will likely despise Germany).

It would also be bordered by the Soviet Union.

[Derpist]

If he had won WWI, WWII and the Bolshevik revolution would never have happened.

Uh, Kaiser Wilhelm doesn't win without the Bolshevik Revolution knocking Russia out of the war.

A German victory in WW1 would be better than IRL just because there'd be no Nazis, but it'd still be pretty bad. Germany was a military dictatorship by 1917 that was drowning in war debt. The only way it could stave off total economic collapse (like IRL) would be totally pillage Eastern Europe and France in a treaty infinitely worse than Versailles, which it totally would do.

Europe would thus be an economic basketcase, totally cut-off from the rest of the world too, with Germany as only somewhat less disastrous than its neighbors (who will likely despise Germany).

It would also be bordered by the Soviet Union.

This is true if Germany wins late in the war, but what if they knock out France in 1914? Russia would probably make peace and the UK would be basically forced to end the war.

That would probably be a much better world, but it's really hard to get done. Ultimately, the Schleffein plan failed because there simply weren't enough close to enough men to do everything they needed done. Of course, they could get more men from the Eastern Front, but they also only barely pulled off their miraculous victory over Russia at Tannenberg, which was probably the only thing stopping Russia from driving to Vienna/Berlin and forcing the Germans to pull back tons of men from the West.

[Derpist]

Germany would need everything to go right to knock out France in 1914. A truly neutral U.S. would make a Western Front victory in 1915 possible and 1916 probable.

I think its debatable if the Schleffein plan was ever possible or just really really hard to pull off. I'm pretty neutral on that proposition.

The issue with a very quick German victory is...what stops them from doing it again? After totally creaming France in 1870 and 1914, they might get pretty damn full of themselves. And it's not like France would feel genuinely crushed. World War I was thought to be the war to end all wars because every nation was completely wiped out in the meat grinder. A quick victory in WW1 may lead to people not understanding how horrific total war was.

"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it."

[Derpist]

I don't get this pro-German World War I view that the world would have been so much better if they had won. Events don't occur in a vacuum.

If France lost, there is a good chance the Third Republic fell and that would result in the creation of a government dedicated to restoring its former glorly. That could easily be a fascist dictator.

Also, Russia was in an abyss of rioting in 1914. Knowledge of this actually made things worse, because the German diplomats fueled the notion in Berlin that Russia was a paper tiger and could not possibly stand up to the Central Powers. Patriotic fervor temporarily papered over these problems, but a swift defeat by Germany probably plunges the country into revolution. Considering their history, an iron man on a horse is the most likely outcome.

To be fair, fascist France weaker with a monarchist/democratic Germany with a strong military and a communist Russia is not worse than fascist Germany with a democratic France with a weak military and a communist Russia.

It's much better. Hitler was far worse than Mussolini or the austro-fascists.

It's actually difficult to express how awful the Nazis were.

[Derpist]

3. No Fascism - Yea, France and Russia just gonna happily accept German domination. Their weak gov'ts would fall and the chaos would lead to militant dictators in both countries.

I guess if your standard is "No Hitler", then fine. But that is pretty weak and doesn't even imply avoidance of the devastation caused by him and the war, its just about avoiding him. Which makes little sense. Today, there would be some evil dictator reviled throughout the world for mass mudering, we would never have known Hitler, but we would know this guy instead.

That's a perfectly reasonable standard, because any French fascist regime would be much better than Hitler, much like how Mussolini was much better than Hitler. Mussolini didn't want to kill millions. Thousands, yeah. But not millions.

[Derpist]

3. No Fascism - Yea, France and Russia just gonna happily accept German domination. Their weak gov'ts would fall and the chaos would lead to militant dictators in both countries.

I guess if your standard is "No Hitler", then fine. But that is pretty weak and doesn't even imply avoidance of the devastation caused by him and the war, its just about avoiding him. Which makes little sense. Today, there would be some evil dictator reviled throughout the world for mass mudering, we would never have known Hitler, but we would know this guy instead.

That's a perfectly reasonable standard, because any French fascist regime would be much better than Hitler, much like how Mussolini was much better than Hitler. Mussolini didn't want to kill millions. Thousands, yeah. But not millions.

You forgot the other country I mentioned repeatedly. One that has long history of blood thirsty tyrants rising to power and killing vast numbers of their own people, Russia. Lets just for arguments sake, say Reactionary Russia, engages in its own holocaust. Assuming that were the case, would still stand by the claim that Germany winning was a better outcome.

Hitler did not rise to power because the Allies defeated Germany in World War I. IT happened because of the economic collapse and the failure of the Weirmar Republic to handle the crisis. It is true he played off of the revanchism just as much as the anti-semitism. But the opening was caused by the Depression.

Pinning for German victory in World War I to avoid WWII is like pining for British victory in the Revolution to avoid the Civil War. Victory by Germany would mean the world is dominated by authoritarians, because Democracy would have failed in France and Russia and Germany while possessing some elements was not a democracy under the Kaiser.

Reactionary Russia already existed - it was called Imperial Russia. It's unclear that fascism would automatically rise in a defeated Russia or France. France seems more likely, but there are a lot of key differences between Russian and German society, political ideology, and etc. I am no proponent of the Sonderweg thesis, but it seems too simplistic that defeat in war ---> fascism. Bulgaria didn't go fascist. Plus, Russia ended up pretty badly IRL too. A lot of people died under Stalin, probably far more than under most non-Nazi fascists.

And yeah, it seems increasingly obvious to me that the US would have been better off had the American independence war failed. Slavery probably goes away faster and the world is probably spared the modern American empire.