*WW2 in a Central Powers victory scenario

In a scenario where Germany won WW1 in Kaiserreich-esque circumstances (via not launching unrestricted submarine warfare and therefore pissing off the Americans), how would alt-WW2 develop in a scenario where the Russians and French go revanchist and launch Round Two to gain revenge (assume the Germans and Austria-Hungary get a case of complacency akin to the one which struck Britain and France IOTL) with the collusion of a militarist Japan similar to OTL's? Who do the Americans (and British) side with? How does *WW2 end? What does the post-*WW2 order look like?
 
Not very well as Russia (without Azerbaijan and the Caucaus) and France are oil importers and, without Ukraine and the Baltic states, Russia is a net food importer as well. If Russia and France militarise to the extent that they could seek a rematch with the Central Powers they will alarm Britain and Japan, particularly if Germany and Austria-Hungary have demilitarised a bit and are integrated into the global economy. The Ottomans will stick with the Central Powers being frightened of Russia and having gained Azerbaijan which they will want to hang on to.
Bulgaria will likely also stick to the Central Powers having made considerable territorial gains unless bribed into neutrality. Largely a satiated power they are wanting to hold on to their gains more than anything else.
If Romania was on the losing side it might side with France and Russia but, with the Central Powers, winning more likely to have sided with them and gained Bessarabia. In which case they also have reason to fear revanche. However if the Russians repudiate all claims to Bessarabia they have an incentive to gain Transylvania.
Italy would probably stay neutral - the Russians would be weaker than the OTL USSR and hard to see France being any stronger than OTL. Demographically their armed forces of 1940 were at their maximum. Britain unlikely to be backing France. And even a somewhat complacent Germany and Austria-Hungary (plus Kingdom of Poland, Kingdom of Finland, Kingdom of Lithuania, United Baltic Duchy and Sultanate of Turkey) is going to be a big power bloc to decide to declare war on. Especially when dependent on imported oil.
 
Well, Blitzkrieg-esque tactics by France and Russia might be the "great equalizer" in such a conflict with a Germany which has gone complacent and hasn't done much in the field of military innovation (keep in mind the Nazis IOTL did in six weeks what the forces of the Kaiser failed to do in four years using Blitzkrieg).
 
Last edited:
Russia and France would need some strong ally like UK or USA but I don't see them ally with Franco-Russian Axis. Not much reason for that. Alone Russia and France would be quiet helpless without their coal, iron, oil and food reserves. And French wouldln't be very motivated when they have lost badly two previous wars against Germany only in fifty years. And Russia would be still quiet weak due WW1 and civil war. Italy, Serbia and Romania would be quiet useless and even if Austro-Hungary and Germany are politically similar as UK and France in OTL Serbia and Romania hardly get chances re-militarise themselves.
 
I think the trope would have a Soviet Russia and communist France, of course giving us a proto-Nazi reactionary Germany, but I think that is pastiche. Instead I would stalemate the war and reverse the roles, by the early 1930s you have increasingly Socialist Germany facing the increasingly right-wing Republics of defeated and humiliated Russia and France. Germany has imposed a harsh Versailles like peace upon Russia and with British influence had not done so effectively to France. The British have retreated from their alliances to each as they turn both inward and outward to redress the hated peace. Russia here without a full blown civil war is healthier, likely just as strong as the USSR had recovered Russia from WWI, going to a dictatorship as the domestic situation melts down, rearming flagrantly and spending wildly, France is as strong or weak too, both rivaling German power as the A-H Empire may be struggling with its internal issues, thus weakening the CPs even with Bulgaria in step, Romania playing along and the OE cooperating. We could have Italy going Fascist and aligning with the Franco-Russian "axis" so you get the Italians picking at the British, Japan having broken away stirring trouble in Asia and the USA never having looked beyond its continent. The British might be embroiled in disputes with the OE too, with France and Russia picking at the edges. Here you might not see enough gravity for the British to ally with Germany but they at least are no longer belligerent. I doubt the Germans are "complacent" but they might have suffered enough economic doldrums and the rapprochement minded Zentrum/SDP coalition in power feels quite appeasing and neglectful of its military commitments, so here the second world war begins in Asia with aggressive Japan, maybe war sparks between the UK and Japan, Italy lumps on to assert itself, the Russians try for Finland and France instead of investing in Maginot has gone for Lightening War. Italy goes at A-H and a reversed Barbarossa would put the German armies on the defense with a French strike into the Ruhr devastating. From there it would be a shorter but not certain war.
 
Well, Blitzkrieg-esque tactics by France and Russia might be the "great equalizer" in such a conflict with a Germany which has gone complacent and hasn't done much in the field of military innovation (keep in mind the Nazis IOTL did in six weeks what the forces of the Kaiser failed to do in four years using Blitzkrieg).

Apples and Oranges. The French Army in 41 was a pale shadow of what it had been in 14 not because of a sense of complacency, but economic-demographic realities. For example, the French footsoldier/conscript in the 30's only had 6 months of active duty/training vs. 3 years in the early 1900's, which did a huge amount to contribute to the adoption of simple defensive tactics since the men couldn't be expected to be trained and maintain the skills for anything more complex
 
Last edited:

Anchises

Banned
Well, Blitzkrieg-esque tactics by France and Russia might be the "great equalizer" in such a conflict with a Germany which has gone complacent and hasn't done much in the field of military innovation (keep in mind the Nazis IOTL did in six weeks what the forces of the Kaiser failed to do in four years using Blitzkrieg).

That is a common misconception. The Kaiserliche Armee wouldn't go complacent. The Großer Generalstab highly valued intellectualism and innovation. The strong performance of the Wehrmacht wasn't a contribution by Weimar or the Third Reich, it was the last gasp of the Prussian military culture.

The people who IOTL shaped the Wehrmacht were the high achievers of the Kaiserliches Heer, they were the ones retained in the 100.000 men Reichswehr, they would have been the ones promoted in a larger army.

The use of concentrated Panzergroups is still likely if Stoßtruppentaktik and Cambrai still happen ITTL.

France on the other hand would be devastated even more than IOTL and the early "Spirit of the Offensive" still would have caused grievious losses. I don't see them developing an offensive doctrine.

Russia is a wildcard but in all likelihoof weaker than IOTL.

Apples and Oranges. The French Army in 41 was a pale shadow of what it had been in 14.

ITTL this is going to be even more obvious.
 
OTL after "winning" WWI France developed a primarily defensive strategy - that's what the Maginot Line was all about. The Boche were to break themselves/bleed dry going through the Maginot Line, reserve forces behind the line would deal with any isolated breakthrough. Once the Germans had bled enough, then there4 would be an offensive. The "attaque a l'outrance" idea was dead and buried in the trenches.
 
OTL after "winning" WWI France developed a primarily defensive strategy - that's what the Maginot Line was all about. The Boche were to break themselves/bleed dry going through the Maginot Line, reserve forces behind the line would deal with any isolated breakthrough. Once the Germans had bled enough, then there4 would be an offensive. The "attaque a l'outrance" idea was dead and buried in the trenches.
Well, this revanchist French regime would be more willing to listen to the ideas of one Charles de Gaulle IMHO.
 
Woudl France really be "revanchist"? Winning WWI lead to a disillusion on warfare and all around defeatism, why would the French become ultranationalistic monkies after losing their second (or third if you count the Napoleonic wars) round against the Prussians, this time with half of the world at their side?
 

Anchises

Banned
Well, this revanchist French regime would be more willing to listen to the ideas of one Charles de Gaulle IMHO.

Why would France be any more agressive or motivated after losing ?


Revanchism caused a devastating loss and the situation imho would be closer to post-WW2 Germany.

So, how would the fronts of alt-WW2 proceed and who would be the "minor allies" of France and Russia?

If France really "risks it" yet again, they would probably avoid a repeat of the ill-fated Frontier Offensives of WW1. Sure, the German industry close to the border is a tenpting target but they failed with that strategy in 1914 and it is easily predictable.

I could still see a Maginot equivalent manned with second-rate troops meant to bind German formations and to free manpower for the offensive.

The offensive element might be a reverse "Schlieffenette". The initial offensive would be aimed at securing Belgium (likely a German satellite), to protect the French industry and to create a basis for further offensives.

Basically an offensive with mainly defensive strategic aims. Also easily predictable but I really don't think France could or would go for a hail mary like the sickle cut.

Then the rest of the war would depend on the Russian performance.

A Soviet Russia would certainly attempt to use some kind of hybrid warfare, heavily relying on native commies to disrupt Germany's eastern satellites.
 
Well, this revanchist French regime would be more willing to listen to the ideas of one Charles de Gaulle IMHO.

... why? De Gaulle in this timeline would have spent the last the last 2-3 years of the war (longer than he'd actually have served on the field in it!) In a German prison and never have advanced behyond the rank of captain. He'd have to be extremely lucky just to find a position in the deeply-cut post war army, much less one in which anybody is going to listen.
 
... why? De Gaulle in this timeline would have spent the last the last 2-3 years of the war (longer than he'd actually have served on the field in it!) In a German prison and never have advanced behyond the rank of captain. He'd have to be extremely lucky just to find a position in the deeply-cut post war army, much less one in which anybody is going to listen.
Fair enough.
 
Woudl France really be "revanchist"? Winning WWI lead to a disillusion on warfare and all around defeatism, why would the French become ultranationalistic monkies after losing their second (or third if you count the Napoleonic wars) round against the Prussians, this time with half of the world at their side?

It bears mentioning the word "revanchist" itself is French. And it came from the loss in the war against Prussia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revanchism
 
Why would France be any more agressive or motivated after losing ?

Revanchism caused a devastating loss and the situation imho would be closer to post-WW2 Germany.

AFAIK, West Germany did not recognize the new German-Polish border until 1970? (Technically: until 1990.) It did not launch another war, sure, but it also did not adopt the level of defeatism that might have been expected.

And I don't really think the situation in France would be comparable to post-WW2 Germany. The devastation would not be so massive and thorough, and the background and nature of the war they lost would also be quite different.
 

Anchises

Banned
AFAIK, West Germany did not recognize the new German-Polish border until 1970? (Technically: until 1990.) It did not launch another war, sure, but it also did not adopt the level of defeatism that might have been expected.

And I don't really think the situation in France would be comparable to post-WW2 Germany. The devastation would not be so massive and thorough, and the background and nature of the war they lost would also be quite different.

1) Not accepting Oder-Neiße was mainly a move to get votes from these guys:
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertriebenenverband (basically political pressure groups for the expulsed Germans from the Eastern territories.

No one really considered waging a war or something like that. The hope always was that Western Germany would be able to "buy" the territories back, in the framework of a final peace conference between the Victory Powers and Germany.

By the 60s even most "Heimatvertriebene" where unwilling to wage a war for their former homes, a sizable number even said that they were Polish lands now.

2) Just having lost the 2nd time in a row against Germany, massive casualties and devastation in the heartlands of France and reparations.

Sure, it is not exactly like post-WW2 in Germany but even IOTL France was burned out after WW1. Why would that be any better after losing ?

Hell, there is a sizeable chance that the hard left has taken over in the post-war turmoil.
 
1) Not accepting Oder-Neiße was mainly a move to get votes from these guys:
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertriebenenverband (basically political pressure groups for the expulsed Germans from the Eastern territories.

No one really considered waging a war or something like that. The hope always was that Western Germany would be able to "buy" the territories back, in the framework of a final peace conference between the Victory Powers and Germany.

By the 60s even most "Heimatvertriebene" where unwilling to wage a war for their former homes, a sizable number even said that they were Polish lands now.

Fair enough.

2) Just having lost the 2nd time in a row against Germany, massive casualties and devastation in the heartlands of France and reparations.

Sure, it is not exactly like post-WW2 in Germany but even IOTL France was burned out after WW1. Why would that be any better after losing ?

Hell, there is a sizeable chance that the hard left has taken over in the post-war turmoil.

Though hard left takeover doesn't mean there's no revanchism - after all, the "hard left" took over in Russia too.
 

Anchises

Banned
Though hard left takeover doesn't mean there's no revanchism - after all, the "hard left" took over in Russia too.

Certainly true. If the French worker state believes that Germany would succumb to Revolution once war begins, an attack, for me at least, would be more believable.
 
Top