StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Old, but worth reading.....



It Could Have Been the German Century
by Francis Fukuyama

My nominee for man of the century is considerably less well known than Time's choice, Albert Einstein, even though his actions arguably left a much greater imprint on the century. He is Alexander von Kluck, the hapless general commanding the German First Army as it swung around the French right while dashing toward Paris in September 1914. The French line miraculously held, and von Kluck lost the first battle of the Marne. The German drive was stalemated, and the two sides then settled down for four horrible years of trench warfare in a conflict that came to be known as World War I.

It is worthwhile thinking through what might have happened had the Germans won in early September. They most likely would have swept on to Paris by the end of the month, forcing a capitulation by the French government (as happened in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, and again in May 1940). A quick German victory would have left unimpaired the cultural self-confidence of 19th-century European civilization. The 8.5 million casualties of World War I would not have spawned a radical revolutionary movement in Russia called Bolshevism. With no German humiliation there would have been no occasion for rabble-rousing on the part of an unemployed painter named Adolf Hitler, and therefore no National Socialism.

No World War II

As they say of Ginsu knives, there's more: no Russian Revolution and Nazism means there would have been no World War II, no Holocaust, no Cold War and no Chinese or Vietnamese revolutions. Decolonization and the emergence of the Third World might have taken place much later absent the exhaustion of hte British Empire after two world wars and the rise of radical revolutionary movement in Eurasia. And the U.S., which came of age as a great power due to the world wars, may have remained the isolationist paradise fondly remembered by Patrick Buchanan.

A quick German victory over France would not necessarily have made the 20th century more peaceful. The U.S. might still have allied with Briatin and Russia to expel the Germans from France as they did in June 1944. On the other hand, it is perfectly plausible to imagine the German Empire, supreme on the continent but lacking Hitler's maniacal ambition, settling in for a protracted struggle with the British Empire over colonies. The monumental revolutions and wars of the first half of our century might have been replaced by a century of relative peace and economic progress in what would have been the German, rather than the American, Century.

This kind of counterfactual history quickly becomes so speculative as to be meaningless. I have spun out htis alternative scenario for the 20th century simply to make a point about historical contingency: The great events that shape our time often spring from very small causes that one could esaily imagine having happened differently, like the battle lost by von Kluck.

According to Alexis de Tocqueville, democratic peoples dislike the idea that single individuals or relatively small events can shape large ones, wanting rather to believe in the power of large, impersonal historical forces. But history frquently plunges off in oblique and oftne disastrous directions as a result of actions by individuals who are often not great but, like von Kluck, mediocre.

If history can indeed be altered in such big ways by little events, what does this tell us about the possibility of historical progress? De Tocqueville asserted in the 19th century that democracy and the idea of human equality had been steadioly gaining ground over the previous seven centuries, and that American democracy would eventually become a model for the entire world. As the 20th century closes, de Tocqueville would seem to be right on target. While there were, according to Freedom House, only a handful of true democracies in 1900, today some 40% of the world's population live in polities that can reasonably be labeled democratic. Is this, like von Kluck's defeat, just an accident of time and place? Will this democratic moment pass in the next century or next millennium, as the result of an unexpected defeat in an obscrube battle yet to come?

The answer, in my view, is no. Even the terrible detour taken by world history in the wake of von Kluck's defeat accelerated the pace of the democratic advances that occurrred later in the century. World War I brought about the collapse of the German, Austro-Hungarian and Turkish empires. While tremendously destabilizing, this laid the ground for national self-determination, which we today regard as a key democratic right. The war and its aftermath brought to power working class parties in Britain, France and other countries, laying the basis for expanded political participation and the modern welfare state. Military competition brought about innumerable technological innovations, from aircraft and radar to computers, integrated circuits and the Internet. All of these advances improved living standards and increased possiblities for communication, education and association, all of which are critical to modern democracy.

A German century may have been peaceful and prosperous, but in the social sphere it also would have been stratified, corporatist and ultimately based on racial and ethnic hierarchy -- a world made safe for South Africa. While there doubtless would have been gradual advances in human liberty and equality, the explosive upheavals of the actual 20th century greatly accelerated the pace of change. The Holocaust put paid to concepts like social Darwinism and eugenics that were widely held by respectable people in the West up through the 1930's. In the U.S., the service of African-Americans and the entry of women into the industrial work force in World War II laid the groundwork for advances by both groups in later decades.

Advancing Democracy

None of this is meant, of course, to justify the terrible events of the century now passing. But it does demonstrate the truth of de Tocqueville's assertion that even the actions of democracy's enemies seem in the long run to advance the cause of democracy. It also supports Immanuel Kant's view that man's "asocial sociability" -- his propensity for war and violence -- is the crucible of human progress.

So it turns out that the main consequence of the long chain of events occasioned by Gen. von Kluck's defeat, important as those events were for the millions of individuals affected by them, was to affect mostly the timing of the march toward democracy and free markets and not the final objective. This would seem to be evidence for what Hegel called the "cunning of History," or what others would label the hand of God in human affairs.

Mr. Fukuyama is a professor of public policy at George Mason University and author, most recently, of "The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of the Social Order" (Free Press, 1999).

I love alternate history theories. And have always wondered what would have happened if the Germans would have won.

It would have been a much more peaceful century, but through those wars humanity advanced so much. How much longer would it have been for the invention of the jet aircraft, or the Rocket. But would anyone have ever built the A bomb if there had been no world wars.

Nice post there, Shep.

And I would agree with you there about what can affect history...

I've always wondered what would have happened if Kaiser Friedrich III had listened to his german doctors and had the throat cancer that killed him treated earlier. He possibly would have Bismarck around longer than his son did. They got along reasonably well, and Bismarck did not have the Anglophobe tendencies that led to WWI. Friedrich was something of a liberal, and favored an alliance with Britain. A triple alliance between Britain, Germany, and the U.S. was a possibility that was talked about at the time, also. What if? WHAT IF?? An useless but enjoyable exercise.....

Change the outcome of the Battle of Britain which would have cleared the way for Operation Sea Lion(The Invasion of England) to take place and UK might have fallen. Thereby creating a Fortress Europe that America would have found difficult if not impossible to invade. I

If Hitler would have honored the non-aggresion pact with the Soviet Union WWII would have lasted much much longer.
If Hitler would have given the his Generals in France operational control of the Panzer Divisions there, or if someone had the balls to wake the little meglomanic up on the morning of D-Day to inform him of the invasion....the Invasion of Normandy might have failed. Change just little things and history would change.

(Granted the Battle of Britain was not a little thing, but if the Luftwaffe would have done just a little better the consiqueces would have been dramatic.)

Dargos wrote:Change the outcome of the Battle of Britain which would have cleared the way for Operation Sea Lion(The Invasion of England) to take place and UK might have fallen. Thereby creating a Fortress Europe that America would have found difficult if not impossible to invade. I

(Granted the Battle of Britain was not a little thing, but if the Luftwaffe would have done just a little better the consiqueces would have been dramatic.)

Sea Lion was a pathetic bluff.And the Luftwaffe could not have won air superiority over the RAF.Had the situation in the South of Britain become untenable the british plan was to retreat the planes in the North,outside the range of the Luftwaffe and then they would have thrown all their assets against the Luftwaffe as soon as the invasion began.The Royal Navy would have done the same,sending all her battleships in the Canal.
There were not enough antiship bombs available to the Stukas,without mentioning that their pilots were not trained for antiship missions, at that time to stop the RN and the Kriegsmarine was still licking her wounds from the Norwegian campaign.
This without mentioning the horrible logistical situation the germans would have found in.All in all if executed Sealion would have been nothing more than a massive suicide.

Dargos wrote:Change the outcome of the Battle of Britain which would have cleared the way for Operation Sea Lion(The Invasion of England) to take place and UK might have fallen. Thereby creating a Fortress Europe that America would have found difficult if not impossible to invade. I

Sea Lion was simply impossible. It would never have succeeded, not in a thousand trillion billion years, not before or after the heat death of the universe, not even if the God of the Old Testament was on the side of Nazi Germany.

The image of those Rhine Barges in the Channel to this day brings such hilarity to my mind that I can barely stand it. But a single destroyer needs to survive to get in among them - And it can sink them with its wake! (No, I'm not kidding, the wake of an RN destroyer at flank would swamp one of the planned invasion barges for Sea Lion) - Or, if you prefer, a few training biplanes while everything is being thrown at the Luftwaffe. Their MGs will do nicely, and hand grenades thrown by the observer for that matter.

Once the survivors get to England's shores, they would have to face coastal defence artillery around Dover - hopeless - And the delicious little treat of the oil being pumped out of prepared pipes into the sea and ignited on the landing beaches.

The UK didn't need an intact army to defend against Sea Lion; the survivors who got on shore from that would gladly surrender to the hospital service so they could survive, or at least die in a measure of comfort. If by miracle any of them did make it to shore they'd be overwhelmed by farmers with shotguns, let alone the units of the British Army that were still left and in the area.

And remember the plan was simply to land light infantry in the initial stages, until Dover had been seized - Light infantry that was coming across in those Rhine barges, against the guns, the RAF (Even if it was driven back, it's a use-it-or-lose-it situation), minefields, the RN - hell, send out submarines if nothing else - then the burning oil along the beach, then the coastal defences.. Then the remaining army units and civic volunteers inland.

Sea Lion was a bad joke, and in fact it is entirely likely that it was conceived of just to convince Hitler that it was impossible for Germany to invade the UK.

Sheppard, I would not be too hard on Alexander von Kluck.As far as I know when it simulated it usually comes out that the germans would not have been able to execute their plan.Men were exhausted from the long marches,logistical complication, and without mentioning unforerseen problems in the others theatres that had made less tropps available for that offensive.In that period strategic mobility and defensive capabilties were had too much advantage over offensive and tactical mobility.It was easier to defed than to attack.

Admiral Piett wrote:Sheppard, I would not be too hard on Alexander von Kluck.As far as I know when it simulated it usually comes out that the germans would not have been able to execute their plan.Men were exhausted from the long marches,logistical complication, and without mentioning unforerseen problems in the others theatres that had made less tropps available for that offensive.In that period strategic mobility and defensive capabilties were had too much advantage over offensive and tactical mobility.It was easier to defed than to attack.

Anyway, even if they'd succeeded in taking Paris, the German army would have been exhausted by the effort, and there was absolutely no plan about what to do next. Essentially, regrouping and consolidating their gains they would have given the British and French enough time to regroup and hold on to the rest of France - And the Germans would have more territory to hold and probably longer lines to defend, a long with a larger hostile population to hold down (The Paris Mob would be something to contend with when the entire country was not under German occupation).

I suspect that, since Britain has entered the war, the German capture of Paris might not actually change the final outcome on the Western Front. Remember that the British also diverted a lot of troops to secondary theatres - These troops can be sent to the Western Front to prop up the French.

The big deal is that Italy is probably going to stay neutral, which could have major consequences in the East. If Germany does win this, it will be in 1917 with an a-historically early Michael Offensive that can finish off the French before any quantity of American troops arrive; Russia being smashed early by the full weight of the Austro-Hungarians, and the liklihood of Rumania, seeing AH fully concentrated against Russia, siding with the Central Powers to regain Moldavia, instead of attacking AH to regain Transylvania.

It could also have consequences for the Central Powers in the Balkans, but I don't think they'll affect the course of the war. The largest thing I can imagine is the possible failure of the Serbian army to escape, and further to the East, the Ottoman-British conflict being a bit of a Cold War, or at least a very slow conflict, as the British commit only Indian Army units to fight the Ottomans, against whom they (The OE) should acquit themselves well.

The USA would still get involved because this changes absolutely nothing in regard to the naval equation; the blockade is going to keep on strangling Germany, and so unrestricted submarine warfare is going to be at the same point in 1917.

But I think Germany's chance would come with an a-historically early Michael Offensive: If they already hold Paris, then it would be a matter of enveloping the BEF, and cutting the channel ports. Such a defeat of the British would be a massive blow to their morale, and short of through the Mediterranean - a much longer supply route - they'd be mostly unable to effectively send in troops and supplies to France, nor would the AEF of course - Which was largely on British ships. And the French would probably then cave on seeing their allies driven out; if they didn't, I suspect an opportunistic Italian declaration of War to regain certain Sardinian territories ceded to France in the 1850s would seal it.

(I simply cannot see the Italians agreeing to the Treaty of London with Paris having fallen.)

So the real question, then, is what happens in the east with more troops pressing against Russia from 1915-on, and if that results in an early Brest-Litvosk equivlant that can send the German armies in Russia West.

I'd also note that though Germany might very well win this one and come out of the victory in a position to gain important colonies and valuable territories, it would be totally devastating to Europe. I do not see an easy victory in 1914 in those circumstances and by that point in time.

So what happens if Joseph Kennedy swings those last two votes he needed to get the US to delcare war on England for her acts of Piracy on US shipping, and her atrocities in 1916?

Then we're in a 2-front naval war with the British and Japanese and a land war in Canada. The Germans can use their submarines to attack British warships, because the trans-Atlantic convoys won't be coming. Both sides starve because America was selling food to both sides until 1917. With shipping from North America cut, Britian is forced to import grain and beef from Argentina--longer supply lines and a hostile American surface fleet to contend with. American entry on the German side doesn't effect the land war in Europe very much, but it worsens the British situation considerably. Unless Germany completely blows it, the war should end with the United States in possession of Canada and pretty much an uncontested power in the Atlantic, and sharing the Pacific with the Japanese.

We declared war on Germany overwhelmingly

Joseph Kennedy wanted us to stop grain shipments to BOTH sides, and declare war on England & Germany