|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Jan 8, 2016 5:50:38 GMT
Hello once again dear boardmembers and welcome to my first thread of 2016. If you'd like to participate, I would like to explore another favorite question of mine. What if the Central Powers had emerged the victor instead of The Entente on The First World War? Just imagine how different the 20th Century would've been if that were the case? I would like to hear your opinion about the impact of such an outcome on any particular part of the world- Europe, Africa, The Middle East or America, ect. and what would the world possibly be like today? I for one thing believe that since in our timeline, Canada (my country) gained much respect from Britain for its wartime effort, proving itself worthy in battle, at great sacrifice for the size of our country, it was our country's coming-of-age experience. I think perhaps the opposite would've happened if Britain had lost- perhaps, pissed for fighting so hard to achieve nothing- we would have turned our backs on the Empire, declared total independence, or perhaps even joining the United States. While in Europe, many of the central and eastern nations including Germany and Austria-Hungary which became republics as a result of losing WWI will remain aristocratic monarchies and notions of that type of rule will likely be strengthened for decades to come. Since Britain would've still been WAY too powerful to demand any major reparations from, they'd pressure France to hand over its overseas colonies the way Germany was forced to in 1919 at Versailles. In addition to gaining new colonial territory, Germany would likely still maintain the Rhineland which it snagged from France over 40 years earlier in the Franco-Prussian Wars as well as parts of Poland. The Ottoman Empire might still exist as well and not be reborn as what we know today as Turkey. It's possible it could evolve into this ATL's equivalent of Saudi Arabia as the world's foremost oil producer. Because they controlled the world's greatest oil-rich area for just a few years longer, the Empire survives narrowly. There are plenty of more subjects to explore on this topic and if you could elaborate, I'd be more than happy. I hope you make the best you can out of 2016 my good sirs.  |
|
|
|
Post by orvillethird on Jan 8, 2016 15:23:46 GMT
One big question: Does the US enter the war or not?
If they do enter the war on the Entente side, then expect US intervention to be confined to the Americas, China and the Pacific. (The US was never isolationist. They were non-interventionist for a few short times.) We could also see some arms limitation treaties and expanded Geneva Conventions, but still no League of Nations.
If they stay out, expect the prewar foreign policy to continue, except the US would be a lot richer. They could buy some Pacific and Caribbean possessions- or even the Falklands! (Perhaps some of Mexico too, if they go into debt for a different reason.) If Canada wants to join them, the US would welcome most of them (Quebec could be a minor issue).
If they go in on the Central Powers side, expect the US to snatch up the Entente's Caribbean territories, at minimum. (Also some Pacific islands, perhaps a treaty port in China or the Falklands to boot.) Some might get independence, but smaller areas would certainly be US territory. Canada might get restive if forced to become US territory...and the US might be bitter over Defense Scheme 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by rinkou on Jan 8, 2016 18:19:01 GMT
The Pacific is huge. I don't see the US sending its relatively small fleet across the Pacific to maybe grab a few islands from the Germans that the Japanese wouldn't get to first anyway.
In this hypothetical, how are we supposing the Central Powers win?
|
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Jan 9, 2016 3:27:02 GMT
^ In my imagination for this scenario, The US still joins the Entente, but Germany wins as a result of getting EXTREMELY lucky with their 1918 Spring offensive proving a success completely storm through France in the process and once they confront both Britain and the US, they win albeit very narrowly thanks accessing ransacked French resources and amplified morale. After loosing the war alongside Britain, The United States continues to be relatively isolationist on the world stage as the years go by.
|
|
|
|
Post by huojin on Jan 9, 2016 12:17:53 GMT
The Austro-Hungarian Empire was in a state of near-collapse in 1918 already, prior to possible German success with the Spring Offensive. Left-wing tendencies, pacifism, ethnic strife and separatism, and uprisings in the army were too deep set to be overcome, even by the victory of the Central Powers. At the very least you'd see a civil war/mass fracturing, and anything that emerged from that mess would not be recognisable as the Austro-Hungarian state.
It's much the same story with the Ottomans. Already the Sick Man of Europe, the war took a heavy toll, not to mention the on-going Arab Revolt and the Armenian Resistance. The likelihood of collapse is high.
I also dispute the idea that Canada might've turned against Britain. Canada still performs admirably in the Battles of the Somme, Vimy, and Passchendaele - there's still a sense of national achievement born from their involvement in the war. I could see something Statute of Westminster-y sooner than 1931, but joining the US seems particularly uncharacteristic.
The idea of a suffering Germany taking over all of France's overseas colonies is a little over the top too. Even if they win in 1918, they're still a battered, starving nation with economic troubles. I could see them consolidating their hold over their current colonies, and probably snagging a few from Britain and France that are nearby, but they're not in a strong enough position to seize anywhere near the areas of land you're thinking. It seems likely they'd probably take places like Gabon and the Republic of the Congo, and the former Belgian Congo, to link up their presence in the region. Replacing the Force Publique with German colonial troops is hardly much of a difference anyway. Might snag Northern Rhodesia and/or Nyasaland from Britain, perhaps just because they're black-heavy unlike Southern Rhodesia, so far less valuable. You'd see more colonial concessions in perhaps New Guinea, the Pacific Islands, and in Europe itself.
I also think a more likely progression for the end of the war is German advance in the Spring Offensive, breaking the Allied lines as they almost did, the threatening (or perhaps capture, though if the German capitulation is any indication, perhaps unnecessary) of Paris, France suing for peace, followed by British withdrawal and joining the peace agreement.
I wrote a timeline for this, actually, but it was kinda more around the idea of the German defeat sparking a left-wing/socialist revolution in the British Isles (not outside the realms of possibility), than a totally realistic consideration of what might've happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Jan 10, 2016 11:14:22 GMT
Another popular theory I've stumbled across time and time again regarding the outcomes of a timeline such as this is that Germany might fully annex Belgium. Does that sound plausible to any of you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Epic History on Jan 10, 2016 19:39:17 GMT
Another popular theory I've stumbled across time and time again regarding the outcomes of a timeline such as this is that Germany might fully annex Belgium. Does that sound plausible to any of you? It was discussed quite seriously among various ranking German officials, but I don't think it was considered after the September Program. Even then, I think they were much more likely to just take a bite out of it along with the Congo. |
|
|
|
Post by huojin on Jan 10, 2016 22:24:09 GMT
Another popular theory I've stumbled across time and time again regarding the outcomes of a timeline such as this is that Germany might fully annex Belgium. Does that sound plausible to any of you? It was discussed quite seriously among various ranking German officials, but I don't think it was considered after the September Program. Even then, I think they were much more likely to just take a bite out of it along with the Congo. This is my assessment too. They might even have gained territory in northern France, since Germany intended to take land from the French there. With regime change, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by punkrockbowler805 on Jan 22, 2016 8:03:05 GMT
I think maybe a kind of revanchist fascism in France, but less like Mussolini or Hitler and more like the Boulangerist revanche movement after the Franco Prussian war with an authoritarian general promising a more successful rematch after a coup.
|
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Jan 22, 2016 14:02:13 GMT
I think maybe a kind of revanchist fascism in France, but less like Mussolini or Hitler and more like the Boulangerist revanche movement after the Franco Prussian war with an authoritarian general promising a more successful rematch after a coup. Seems sound enough. Various attempts at French Fascism in AH have always struck me as attempting to copy the German and Italians models too much, when really I think it should be it's own creation. Rather than the outrageous territorial claims that Hitler and Mussolini made I would see the leader of a French Fascist movement focusing solely on reclaiming Alsace-Lorraine (and whatever other territory Germany took after the war) rather than repeating the conquests of Napoleon or earlier French kings. In that way French Fascism would follow a sort of "legalistic" movement rather than the outright militarism of its OTL counterparts. In that way French Fascism is probably going to be less destructive towards its own people, but lacking the control Germany had. France could well remain a democracy, with their Fascists remaining in power due to popularity, or possibly due to their President deciding that his position was too important and declaring himself President-for-Life. It would also be pretty cool to see France really trying to unite the colonies with the Metropole through industrialisation and expansion of citizenship, particularly towards veterans. Conservative French Fascism could make good by appealing to the thousands of African veterans in the colonies, especially if they sponsor local politicians. A similar movement could emerge in Britain, out of a desire to throw down with German Imperialism and repair some of that wounded pride. This movement I would see as being more left wing however, to contrast with the conservatism of a victorious Germany, but like their French counterparts there would remain a strong emphasis on democracy and support for veterans. Possibly a similar movement could turn out in America as well, but only if there were enough troops in Europe when the defeat came. It likely won't amount to much if American prosperity can still emerge in the 20's but it could be the seed for an American entry in a later European war. |
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Apr 8, 2016 6:18:16 GMT
In addition, do any of you think that a Central Victory could potentially have an effect on the outcome of the Bolshevik Revolution, or if there will ever be one?
|
|
|
|
Post by Krall on Apr 8, 2016 20:02:09 GMT
Do any of you think that a Central Victory could potentially have an effect on the outcome of the Bolshevik Revolution, or if there will ever be one? I think there would still be a revolution - Russia's losses in WWI were a major contributing factor to the revolution, and Lenin advanced the idea of "revolutionary defeatism" which speculated that the proletariat might gain more from their country losing a war than winning one - but I'm unsure of the effects a Central Powers victory would have on its outcome. Would Germany and its allies intervene in the Russian civil war against the communists as the Entente did? Letting Lenin return to Russia was their idea after all, and the Russian Imperial government was their enemy, so they may decide against it. Regardless of whether the Central Powers decide to intervene or not, I imagine the USSR will be a fair bit weaker later on as it may not be able to retake Russia's former territory in Eastern Europe from Germany's client states. |
|
|
|
Post by Epic History on Apr 11, 2016 23:53:04 GMT
Do any of you think that a Central Victory could potentially have an effect on the outcome of the Bolshevik Revolution, or if there will ever be one? Yes, if we assume it still happens. Intergovernmental talks among the Germans during the Summer of 1918 made it very clear they considered it a matter of when, not if to invade and topple the Damn Commies. It was a near run thing that Imperial German armies didn't go smashing into Moscow and Petrograd at that time, so an intervention for sure was likely to come soon after a German victory. This all assuming of course that the Central Powers victory doesn't butterfly away the Bolshevik Revolution in the first place. While unrest had been building for years, Lenin and the Reds was not a set in stone event from my estimation of the situation and certainly not their victory. As late as 1919, after all, the White forces very nearly destroyed the Soviets themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Apr 12, 2016 5:47:44 GMT
^The Bolshevik Revolution could be butterflied away IF Germany and its allies win the war before 1917.
|
|
|
|
Post by tardis218 on Apr 28, 2016 4:13:52 GMT
^The Bolshevik Revolution could be butterflied away IF the Germans and allies win the war before 1917. I think you're referring to the German funding of Lenin? I do see where you're coming from, but I still feel like, even if Lenin was still in Switzerland and Stalin was in Siberia there still would've been a revolution. I'm not too sure who'd rebel exactly, I thinking it'd mostly been veterans of WW1, peasants, and just general radicals. I still do think that the Tsarist government would have been overthrown, and that Nicholas II and his family would be killed or escape into Germany. By this point in OTL, they were really, really unpopular, and with a full German victory, they'd be hated even more. I do see the 1st Provisional government still taking over, and probably still revolts from the various leftist groups. But, Germany would intervene by this point, and support the Provisional government. The revolutionaries would stand no chance against the professionally trained German army, at least IMO. After the victory in Russia, and the 1st Provisional govenrment becoming the official government of a new Russian Republic, Germany would be friendly, and help set up a functioning Russia. I see extremists on either side having a few minor revolts here and there. But, if a Great Depression like event occurred, Russia would just fall apart. Communists rising up, Monarchists trying to re-create Tsarist Russia, Germany having to intervene. It'd be a mess. |
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on May 8, 2016 23:36:57 GMT
^I understand why Britain in OTL would want to help the Tsar's sympathizers against the Bolsheviks since they were allies with the former at the time, but why would Germany want to prevent said communist faction from taking control in Russia if Tsardom was a common foe they both shared?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rhand on May 9, 2016 1:17:54 GMT
Germany would become bigger on all fronts, and probably lead the eventual creation of a pan-European Union. Austria-Hungary would further balkanize. All in all, it would be a peaceful and a better world.
|
|
|
|
Post by MinnesotaNationalist on May 9, 2016 4:37:24 GMT
^I understand why Britain in OTL would want to help the Tsar's sympathizes against the Bolsheviks since they were allies at the time, but why would Germany want to prevent said communist faction from taking control in Russia if Tsardom was a common foe they both shared? The thing is that the Soviets would have inevitably backstabbed the Kaiser in order to A) destroy the imperialist, conservative monarchy (I think just about everything Communists hate can be summed up as Imperial Germany), and B) to create the International, United Communist world that Lenin wanted so much. |
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on May 9, 2016 7:53:06 GMT
^I understand why Britain in OTL would want to help the Tsar's sympathizes against the Bolsheviks since they were allies at the time, but why would Germany want to prevent said communist faction from taking control in Russia if Tsardom was a common foe they both shared? The thing is that the Soviets would have inevitably backstabbed the Kaiser in order to A) destroy the imperialist, conservative monarchy (I think just about everything Communists hate can be summed up as Imperial Germany), and B) to create the International, United Communist world that Lenin wanted so much. Thanks for the info . In addition, do you have any arguements as to why Germany would be more successful in putting them down than Britain's attempts in OTL? One might be that they would have generally greater familiarity with the region in which the Revolution itself took place since it was right next door. |
|
Jocke
New Member
Posts: 39 
|
Post by Jocke on May 9, 2016 8:27:11 GMT
Dont forget that Wilhelm was a good friend with Nicholas before the war. I have a feeling that germany would not let the soviets win, at risk of a revolution in germany.
|
|
