If Britain had lost the First World War, would the Second World War not have happened?

[778]

I am no history expert but if Britian had lost the First World War is there a chance that Second World War would not have happened? I am not saying that it would have been a good thing if we had lost the First World War, because Britian would have been forced to pay millions of pound of reperations like Germany did, and millions of people would have suffered hardship because of this.

But if Germany had won the First World War, would that mean that there would have been less chance of Hitler coming to power?

 

[simonw]

I am no history expert but if Britian had lost the First World War is there a chance that Second World War would not have happened? I am not saying that it would have been a good thing if we had lost the First World War, because Britian would have been forced to pay millions of pound of reperations like Germany did, and millions of people would have suffered hardship because of this.

But if Germany had won the First World War, would that mean that there would have been less chance of Hitler coming to power?

The second world war wouldn't have happened in the same way. Would there have been a second global conflict, difficult to say.


The first world was wasn't Britain v Germany so you'd have to be a bit more specific in defining how it would end in this alternative universe in order to discuss what might have happened to the UK.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The terms of the Versailles Treaty left the Germans feeling very aggrieved. But WWII was more a result of the Wall Street Crash and the resulting economic hardship leaving many people angry and destitute. And that is always prime pickings for extremist politics.

 

[yorksrob]

Would Germany have taken over the empire, leading to a large proportion of the globe having german as its second language, rather than English !

 

[Iskra]

Britain couldn't lose the First World War, much as it couldn't the Second, because it is an island and was protected by a Royal Navy superior to that of its opponents. The navy also enforced an effective blockade on Germany, which it could have maintained even if France had fallen, as in the Second World War.

Even if forced off the continent, Britain would not tolerate German continental hegemony, so would have kept fighting on and the Germans would have been pretty toothless to do anything about Britain.

 

[Cowley]

What if we’d gone in on the side of Germany..?

Britain couldn't lose the First World War, much as it couldn't the Second, because it is an island and was protected by a Royal Navy superior to that of its opponents. The navy also enforced an effective blockade on Germany, which it could have maintained even if France had fallen, as in the Second World War.

Even if forced off the continent, Britain would not tolerate German continental hegemony, so would have kept fighting on and the Germans would have been pretty toothless to do anything about Britain.

There’s a definite tendency to think plucky Britain standing alone but there was of course a huge empire behind us (definitely behind us now anyway!).

 

[Iskra]

What if we’d gone in on the side of Germany..?

We went to war after Germany invaded Belgium, so we didn't really get to pick who did that.

What if we’d gone in on the side of Germany..?



There’s a definite tendency to think plucky Britain standing alone but there was of course a huge empire behind us (definitely behind us now anyway!).

Very true, same for the French too.

 

[WizCastro197]

Again No Hitler, No Jews caused the loss theory from him, no hyper inflation exacerbated by Treaty Of Versailles, so no real reason for Hitler to arise.

Related still, but if Germany won WW1, would Britain still be under Germany's control nowadays?

 

[Cowley]

We went to war after Germany invaded Belgium, so we didn't really get to pick who did that.

This is true.

 

[Harold Hill]

We shouldn't have got involved in either war.

 

[WizCastro197]

We shouldn't have got involved in either war.

Again not really a choice, Germany tried to invade France through Belgium and being in the Entente, Britain would've been roped in either way.

 

[Iskra]

Again No Hitler, No Jews caused the loss theory from him, no hyper inflation exacerbated by Treaty Of Versailles, so no real reason for Hitler to arise.

Related still, but if Germany won WW1, would Britain still be under Germany's control nowadays?

Anti-semitism existed well before Germany lost the First World War, and there was still the Great Depression and the Russian Revolution so the conditions still could have existed for a Hitler to come to power.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2022 ==

We shouldn't have got involved in either war.

I disagree, it might have cost us dearly but it was still the right thing to do on both occasions morally. Where we really went wrong was letting the US get involved after most of the hard fighting had been done.

 

[Yew]

I am not saying that it would have been a good thing if we had lost the First World War, because Britian would have been forced to pay millions of pound of reperations like Germany did, and millions of people would have suffered hardship because of this.

I feel like any reasonably conceivable British "loss" would be more along the lines of "France didn't get Alsace back" as opposed to the idea of unconditional surrender, as we saw with Germany.

 

[Snow1964]

You also need to go back further and realise Germany was less than 50 years old during WW1 having been formed in 1871

This followed wars in 1860s where the Prussians (which became about 60% of Germany) had fought Denmark, Hapsburg monarchy and France and taken over parts of those countries.

This had led to the treaties which caused Britain to enter WW1. Had they not existed probably would have been a European continent war without Britain and certainly not a world conflict with soldiers from British Empire (India, Australia, New Zealand etc) being brought in.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Again No Hitler, No Jews caused the loss theory from him, no hyper inflation exacerbated by Treaty Of Versailles, so no real reason for Hitler to arise.

I'd say the hyper-inflation was more related to the Wall Street Crash. And that crash created extremist politics across the world, such as in Spain and Italy, not just Germany.

Whether that would have happened if Germany had won, who knows.

 

[StarCrossing]

I'd say the hyper-inflation was more related to the Wall Street Crash.

Hyper-inflation happened several years before the Wall Street Crash and the cause is widely regarded as being the war reparations and Germany's approach to raising the funds for those reparations.

 

[D841 Roebuck]

If Britain had adopted non-sexist primogeniture in the 19th century, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany would have succeeded to the British Throne in 1901 as William V. Anglo-Prussian hegemony??

Mind you, if England had adopted non-sexist primogeniture during the reign of William I, his successors would include Humphrey Bohun (the Earl of Hereford skewered nastily at Boroughbridge in 1322), Sir James Strangeways (Speaker of the House of Commons 1461-2), plus lots of Queens called Anne and, since their descendents emigrated to the American Colonies, a current incumbent probably from Texas...

 

[Iskra]

Hyper-inflation happened several years before the Wall Street Crash and the cause is widely regarded as being the war reparations and Germany's approach to raising the funds for those reparations.

While you are correct about the chronology, recent wisdom is that Germany could afford to pay the reparations but chose not to.

This guy provides interesting history (with sources) on many of the subjects covered in this thread.

 

[StarCrossing]

While you are correct about the chronology, recent wisdom is that Germany could afford to pay the reparations but chose not to.

This guy provides interesting history (with sources) on many of the subjects covered in this thread.

Indeed - an interesting video.

 

[AlterEgo]

I suppose my first question is “define ‘lost’” for the purposes of the discussion. What sort of loss?

 

[WizCastro197]

I suppose my first question is “define ‘lost’” for the purposes of the discussion. What sort of loss?

I suppose of Britain was invaded and Germany captured London taking control of Government etc.

 

[Cowley]

I suppose of Britain was invaded and Germany captured London taking control of Government etc.

Absolutely no chance whatsoever of that happening in either war I’d say?

 

[AlterEgo]

I suppose of Britain was invaded and Germany captured London taking control of Government etc.

Germany had no intention of doing that, let alone the capability though. Even the *German* loss didn’t involve the capture of their capital.

A British loss in WWI was improbable from the outset but if it did happen it would simply be a function of being in the losing alliance. Possibly some form of reparations and the reality of living through our French neighbours being a client state of an unstable Greater Prussia. That’s about it. The post-imperialist age was already dawning and wider German and Austrian influence than that over its immediate neighbours was unlikely. WWI was fought over very little by horrid empires and that is the tragedy of it.

 

[Falcon1200]

We shouldn't have got involved in either war.

Thank goodness we did.

Where we really went wrong was letting the US get involved after most of the hard fighting had been done.

Don't think we really had much choice, and I doubt the Normandy landings could have occurred without the US.

 

[simonw]

Britain couldn't lose the First World War, much as it couldn't the Second, because it is an island and was protected by a Royal Navy superior to that of its opponents. The navy also enforced an effective blockade on Germany, which it could have maintained even if France had fallen, as in the Second World War.

Even if forced off the continent, Britain would not tolerate German continental hegemony, so would have kept fighting on and the Germans would have been pretty toothless to do anything about Britain.

We could well have lost the second world war had Germany invested more heavily in submarines, had the US not come to our rescue and had Germany not invaded Russia.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Nov 2022 ==

Anti-semitism existed well before Germany lost the First World War, and there was still the Great Depression and the Russian Revolution so the conditions still could have existed for a Hitler to come to power.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2022 ==


I disagree, it might have cost us dearly but it was still the right thing to do on both occasions morally. Where we really went wrong was letting the US get involved after most of the hard fighting had been done.

Hard fighting in which war?

 

[Iskra]

Thank goodness we did.



Don't think we really had much choice, and I doubt the Normandy landings could have occurred without the US.

World War 1 I was referring to.

We could well have lost the second world war had Germany invested more heavily in submarines, had the US not come to our rescue and had Germany not invaded Russia.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Nov 2022 ==


Hard fighting in which war?

2 big ifs there. Germany had no ability to decisively knock Britain out of the war in either war.

 

[simonw]

World War 1 I was referring to.


2 big ifs there. Germany had no ability to decisively knock Britain out of the war in either War.

3 big ifs actually, but without us support, Germany could well have starved us out of the war.v

As to ww1, it's again debatable what would have happened had the US stayed strictly neutral

 

[Mcr Warrior]

2 big ifs there. Germany had no ability to decisively knock Britain out of the war in either war.

Indeed, but this thread will essentially always be one of historical "what-if-erry" over a considerable number of years, even if we limit ourselves to the four or five decades immediately preceding 1945.

 

[Iskra]

3 big ifs actually, but without us support, Germany could well have starved us out of the war.v

As to ww1, it's again debatable what would have happened had the US stayed strictly neutral

But they didn’t get anywhere near, you’re just repeating the myths of World War 2. And simultaneously, the blockade of Germany resulted in Germany having to plunder other countries food supplies quite quickly in order to feed just the German folk (and they didn’t bother about the rest), due to being hopelessly deficient in food production.

The British blockade of Germany, was far more effective than the German blockade of Britain in both wars.

The German army in World War One was effectively defeated (drained of manpower) by the end of the Somme in 1916. Only the troops released by Russia’s capitulation kept it going and able to have a last throw of the dice with the Ludendorff offensive.

 

[simonw]

But they didn’t get anywhere near, you’re just repeating the myths of World War 2. And simultaneously, the blockade of Germany resulted in Germany having to plunder other countries food supplies quite quickly in order to feed just the German folk (and they didn’t bother about the rest), due to being hopelessly deficient in food production.

The British blockade of Germany, was far more effective than the German blockade of Britain in both wars.

you seem to have missed the point that this is a thread for hypothetical discussion.