[fuser]

Right......... Germany will be smashing Russia and everyone will left her alone. Not going to happen neither in 1871 nor in 1905.

[Rich]

When I say smash Russia, this would mean the creation of an independent Poland, Baltic States, Finland and possibly Ukraine and the transfer of Romanian territories to Romania. It could also involve the loss of East Asian territories to Japan. Russia would no longer be a threat. Lets remember that even in the far, far worse balance of power in 1914, Germany had essentially defeated the the allies and it was only the intervention of the USA into WWI that stopped German victory. Germany should have been prepared to offer their pacific and Chinese territories to Japan to keep them on side in any break up of Russia.

The greatest challenge for Germany was not breaking Russia or even giving France another kicking. Germany was totally dominant on land in Europe after 1871. It was breaking Austro Hungary apart and absorbing the German areas into Germany along with an all important Mediterranean port.

[fuser]

You didn't answered my question, why would Britain and other powers will allow Germany to do so with Impunity, this is worse than 1914 for Germany.

Also, Poland? Really? You are now just playing some video game. Germany had no interest in creating Poland (neither AH nor Russia) while sitting on a large pile of Polish land.

Germany had essentially defeated the the allies and it was only the intervention of the USA into WWI that stopped German victory.

Wrong.

Germany should have been prepared to offer their pacific and Chinese territories to Japan to keep them on side in any break up of Russia.

and give up her colonial ambition in Pacific for something that may or may not happen.

[anondragon2012]

The Kaiser may have been a fool but he was dealt an awful hand. Bismark's leadership after 1871 was catastrophic. It was absolutely vital to use the window of opportunity while France was down to smash Russia. He intensified the equally disastrous culture Kampf. Germany desperately needed to unite and end the Catholic / Protestant divisions, if it was to push outwards into the world and take on the other Empires.

In sum after 1971 Germany needed to unite with Austria, break up Russia, knock France even further down, gain control of the Mediterranean, seize France's African possessions, then they would have the economic base to go on and compete with Britain and America. German policy was driven by a reckless timidity, and a gullible attachment to so called "international law" that bordered on the suicidal. These traits reached insanity in 1905 when Germany failed to use the revolution to finish off Russia as a threat once and for all.

That is if you agree with the world view of German Imperial ambitions, yes.
I personally think it was the worst course of action for Germany.

To me after German unification, in 1870 it was too late to dream of colonial ambitions in a world already carved up mainly by the British and the French.
To challenge them ineluctably leads to war. I think also that the gains of overseas Imperial possessions are also grossly overestimated. To be truly valuable, colonization has to happen over a very long nurturing period like the British have done. It wouldnt have been useful to Germany.
No matter if you agree with Hitler ideology, I believe Germany was always central European power with no logic for Imperial dreams as France and UK have. German sphere of influence and natural ability lies naturally in the centre and East of Europe, in a world dominated by French and UK Empire.

In my opinion...The destruction and constant infighting of Western Europe was never the right course.
And I have always agreed with Bismarck on this matter.

Long story short, France & UK should never have been challenged. In fact I would go as far as say that in France, Alsace Lorraine should not have been annexed. Even Hitler before WW2 renounced this claim to attempt peace with the French.

There should be no roots of hate in Western Europe, for German success to exist.
Hence why the only opportunity for Germany should have always been a greater Reich in the East (without totally eliminating Russia of course).

I do fully agree with you on the kulturkampf. But you know this is the problem with Prussia leading Germany. And Im happy it ended in 1945 (some say it ended with Hitler regime). Germany was never meant to be led purely by Prussians, their mentality in my opinion doesn't reflect the best outcomes for all of Germany.

[layman]

I was playing EU4 last night and Germany formed under the leadership of Bavaria. They were very peaceful and I am sure this would have been the better route than Prussian militarism!

Actually I have no idea but I think Bavaria is more about beer and having fun.

[Potemkin]

Actually I have no idea but I think Bavaria is more about beer and having fun.

...and staging right-wing Beer Hall Putsches. Beer and politics - two birds, one stone....

[layman]

...and staging right-wing Beer Hall Putsches. Beer and politics - two birds, one stone....

Oh yes that as well.

I am pretty ignorant of German regional culture and German culture in general. You seem quite clued up on the subject. Tell me, is it worth looking into?

[Potemkin]

I am pretty ignorant of German regional culture and German culture in general. You seem quite clued up on the subject.

My knowledge of German culture is superficial at best. If you want the real nitty-gritty, ask one of our German friends on PoFo.

Tell me, is it worth looking into?

Yes. German culture is awesome. It has some... disturbing aspects, but basically it's awesome.

[Thompson_NCL]

An Anglo-German alliance was impossible in the inter-war period. An Anglo-German alliance was far more plausible pre WW1, or at the very least British neutrality should have been possible.

I don't think a German victory in WWI would have created a massive shift in the balance of power; the victorious Germans might have annexed a bit of territory here and there, but Anglo-American pressure could have kept this to a minimum.

[anondragon2012]

...and staging right-wing Beer Hall Putsches. Beer and politics - two birds, one stone....

You can't understand WW2 or anything about Germany without speaking basic German or knowing basic German culture and history.
Most people stereotype history or learn biased versions of it because they only understand history through the prism of their own culture.

I don't say this in a mean way, just as an informative way.
I happen to have travelled alot across Europe, and know about chauvinism and the damage of a bad education that's all

To me the true German Character comes from the Rhine culture, which is West Germany.
Bavaria is Southern Germany and closer to the Austrian cultural cluster (Catholic & Hapsburg Monarchy) than traditional German culture.
Prussia is really a baltic/eastern mentality and culture, closer to Poland than to anything else (Most of Western Poland was East Prussia).
Of course in racial terms they are all Germans, but its important to understand the differences in mentality and history.

I will even go as far as say that Berlin is not really an ideal German capital.
A large German Rhineland city would be more representative of that.
Berlin is definitely Prussian in character.

[Atlantis]

Germany was the only nation in Europe looking to challenge and out-compete Britain, of course it was the no.1 threat on high seas for Britain more than France.

Even prior to 1914, everybody realized that German naval development had been a complete failure. The Germans could never, at the same time, have developed land forces to control the continent and naval forces to beat the British.

At best, the German navy provided some protection against a British blockade and a degree of protection for German trade and overseas interests. But despite all the money spent on the fleet, the Germans were incapable of gaining significant colonial territories. They were no match against the British and French. Even the fledgling US navy did better in gaining control of overseas territories.

The German threat was inflated in public by the British admiralty to finance its own naval expansion and the "liberal imperialists" around the foreign secretary Edward Grey who torpedoed any attempts of forming closer ties with the Germans.

[fuser]

Germany > France

I don't know what are you even arguing now.

You said France was more of a threat to Britain in high seas than Germany, of course you are wrong. As not only Germany had more ships and tonnage than France, it had a larger industrial base too.

German Industrial base had caught up with Britain and was surging ahead at a rapid base while German leadership had shown willingness to achieve parity with Britain in naval power. In light of these facts, of course Germany was the biggest threat to Britain and much more than France contrary to what you originally claimed.

Finally, Britain was ahead of Germany in 1914 only because it took her as real and no.1 threat and out competed her in the naval race on the other hand you are arguing for Britain that she shouldn't consider Germany as a threat which of course would had meant Britain starting to lag behind Germany.

[R_G]

Not really plausible. Had Hitler played his hand differently and pretty much just stood as a stalemate against Britain after capturing North Africa, I strongly feel it would have just been a Cold War but without the hate probably just animosity that would have quelled with time.

Britain would never have fought a war with Germany against anybody.

[Rich]

In sum after 1971 Germany needed to unite with Austria, break up Russia, knock France even further down, gain control of the Mediterranean, seize France's African possessions, then they would have the economic base to go on and compete with Britain and America. German policy was driven by a reckless timidity, and a gullible attachment to so called "international law" that bordered on the suicidal. These traits reached insanity in 1905 when Germany failed to use the revolution to finish off Russia as a threat once and for all.

That is if you agree with the world view of German Imperial ambitions, yes.
I personally think it was the worst course of action for Germany.

To me after German unification, in 1870 it was too late to dream of colonial ambitions in a world already carved up mainly by the British and the French.
To challenge them ineluctably leads to war. I think also that the gains of overseas Imperial possessions are also grossly overestimated. To be truly valuable, colonization has to happen over a very long nurturing period like the British have done. It wouldn’t have been useful to Germany.[/quote]With hindsight the whole empire building thing was pointless if the Europeans were essentially going to let go of their empires with out a fight after world WWII. However even without hindsight it was possible to predict that nationalism was going to be a growing issue. Germany had potential ethnic border disputes with the French, Luxembourg, Belgium ,Holland, Denmark, the Poles, the Lithuanians, the Czechs, the Slovene, and the Italians. There was even potential for conflict with the Latvians, Estonians and Swiss. Combined with Tsarist Russia's border with Germany this meant it was almost inevitable that people would gang up on Germany and paint them as the bad guy as the aggressor. Compare that with say the British who only really had a border conflict with the Irish.

Now yes from our 2015 vantage point if Germany had tried to avoid conflict, avoided declaring war and waited for Tsarist Russia and Austria-hungry to collapse they would probably have come out quite nicely, but that was totally unrealistic that nation with Germany's power would just allow itself to be humiliated and treated like a second class power. No Germany needed to increase its power and increase it fast. It needed to look for any opportunity to bring Russia or Britain down and any opportunity to give France another kicking. One possibility in the early 20th century would have been to push free trade, and seek anti British and French friendship and alliance with the United States.