Was it realistically possible for Germany to quickly get defeated in a World War?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,716
SoCal
#1
We know that it was possible for Germany to win a quick victory in World War I had they been more successful on the Western Front in 1914 and successfully managed to capture Paris. With France dropping out of the war, Russia would have had no chance against Germany and thus would have likely sued for peace relatively quickly afterwards. However, I am curious in the opposite question--specifically, what it realistically possible for Germany to quickly get defeated in a World War--either in real life's WWI or in an alternate World War I?

If so, how exactly does one realistically accomplish this?

Thoughts?

Also, in regards to the Haber-Bosch process, even if it didn't exist by the time of WWI, the war would have apparently still lasted for two years before Germany would have actually ran out of munitions. In contrast, I want this TL's WWI to last one year or less.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,716
SoCal
#2
For the record, there might be a chance of a quick (one year or less) German defeat in an alt-World War II if Britain, France, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the Soviet Union (especially one that doesn't endure large-scale military purges) all ally to fight Nazi Germany from the very beginning. However, Nazi Germany was probably weakened by the Versailles Treaty (whose effects could have lasted even after a lot of its parts would have been nullified; after all, Germany could have spent the money that it paid in reparations between 1919 and 1932 on things such as improving its military)--whereas I want a Germany that isn't weakened by a Versailles-like treaty to nevertheless lose a Great War.
 
Jun 2015
5,713
UK
#3
If France manned the Ardennes or didn't think it was impassable, then it's possible that the war in France may not have been as smooth for the Germans.
If fighting bogged down, and Germany took to raiding Allied shipping, then the combined French/Royal Navies could combat this, especially if both use the measures the Allies took in keeping the U-boats at bay.

If this Franco-British alliance keeps us, this also could factor in the Japanese invasions of Indochina and Singapore. France and Britain could both raise armies in Asia to help the Chinese, as the British did, and the war would be hastened inthe Allies's favour if Hitler still invades the USSR, orJapan attacks the USA.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,716
SoCal
#4
If France manned the Ardennes or didn't think it was impassable, then it's possible that the war in France may not have been as smooth for the Germans.
If fighting bogged down, and Germany took to raiding Allied shipping, then the combined French/Royal Navies could combat this, especially if both use the measures the Allies took in keeping the U-boats at bay.

If this Franco-British alliance keeps us, this also could factor in the Japanese invasions of Indochina and Singapore. France and Britain could both raise armies in Asia to help the Chinese, as the British did, and the war would be hastened inthe Allies's favour if Hitler still invades the USSR, orJapan attacks the USA.
Yeah, I alluded to the idea of an Anglo-Franco-Soviet alliance in my post above. That could have indeed resulted in a much shorter World War II. However, Germany was hurt in WWII by the fact that it lost a lot of money as a result of the Versailles Treaty--money that it could have used (among other things) to strengthen its military.

What I really want to see here is a way to quickly defeat Germany in a World War in a scenario where Germany didn't experience a Versailles-like treaty beforehand. So, basically, a quick German defeat either in real life's WWI or in an alternate WWI.
 
Jun 2015
5,713
UK
#5
Germany flouted the treaty as soon as Hitler passed the Enabling Act. By 1939, Germany had rearmed to a sufficient degree. If anything it was the Allies who had issues in rearming. Hitler was the dictator so he could order conscription, whilst Britain and France couldn't in the way Hitler could.

For me, a quick german defeat depends on choices and strategies early on in the war.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,716
SoCal
#6
Germany flouted the treaty as soon as Hitler passed the Enabling Act. By 1939, Germany had rearmed to a sufficient degree. If anything it was the Allies who had issues in rearming. Hitler was the dictator so he could order conscription, whilst Britain and France couldn't in the way Hitler could.

For me, a quick german defeat depends on choices and strategies early on in the war.
Wasn't Germany too poor to afford to mechanize its army, though? Underlankers previously said something along these lines and attributed this to the amount of money that Germany lost as a result of paying reparations as a result of the Versailles Treaty.
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,931
Dispargum
#8
Rapid German defeat in 1914:
If the Russians won the Battle of Tannenburg, maybe if Russian 1st Army had continued advancing so that it could crush German 8th Army between the Russian 1st and 2nd Armies.
Combined with a worse German defeat in the Battle of the Marne, perhaps if the French had scrapped their foolish Plan 17 and instead had preserved their own armies by fighting defensively on the frontier.

With the German eastern frontier completely undefended and her western armies defeated and falling back from the Marne, Germany might have no choice but to surrender or be invaded on both fronts. Austria-Hungary would be no help. They struggled early against both Russia and Serbia. If the British had handled the Ottomans better (not siezed their ships) and had sunk the Goeben, the Turks would offer little hope to Germany either.
 
Likes: Futurist

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,067
#9
Wasn't Germany too poor to afford to mechanize its army, though? Underlankers previously said something along these lines and attributed this to the amount of money that Germany lost as a result of paying reparations as a result of the Versailles Treaty.
Well he's just wrong. Germany only paid a very small amount.