A world war with a country other than Germany as the main "bad guy"?

Hitler is murdered by an unknown individual upon leaving Prison, resulting in a continuously fractuous and weak Weimar regime and a Germany that remains disarmed.

However this leaves Stalin unchallenged in his domination of Eastern Europe, and in the 1950s a fully industrialised Soviet Army marches into an unprepared and divided Europe that is too busy squabbling with itself to unite and coordinate against the Russian giant until it is too late.

Aided by local socialist insurgents that have been fueled by an even longer Great Depression, the Soviet Army marches all the way into France, and soon it looks like the British may be the last free peoples in Europe, with the US unwilling to help following a casualty heavy war with Japan in the Pacific.

But the European Allies rally, eventually smashing the Soviet War machine.
 
All of the Western powers had slaves and profitable plantations (consider Haïti and Jamaica), so why would America stand out?



The British lost to the Boers in 1880-81 and struggled to defeat them in 1899-1902. I don't think they can really fight a global coalition.

Fighting a colonial war at the edge of the world isn't the same as fighting a global coalition. The resources utilized weren't even a fraction of the British total.
 
I got you on this. The First World War starts around the 1860's the reason is due to the American Civil War. England & France sides with the Confederates States of America (the Specific POD is on you), in doing so the Czar declares war on UK and France for helping the Confederates. Prussia was busy doing its own thing declares neutrality, but they are Pro-Union, so I wouldn't be surprised if they send Volunteers. Austria Empire sides with France and Uk due to Emperor Maximillian of Mexico, The rest of the European powers are undecided on what to do (Let you decide).

Unrealistic: in 1860’s Russia was not in a condition to declare war on France and Britain economically, militarily and geographically. And anyway the ACW was not of a critical importance to Russia.
 
Hitler is murdered by an unknown individual upon leaving Prison, resulting in a continuously fractuous and weak Weimar regime and a Germany that remains disarmed.

However this leaves Stalin unchallenged in his domination of Eastern Europe, and in the 1950s a fully industrialised Soviet Army marches into an unprepared and divided Europe that is too busy squabbling with itself to unite and coordinate against the Russian giant until it is too late.

Aided by local socialist insurgents that have been fueled by an even longer Great Depression, the Soviet Army marches all the way into France, and soon it looks like the British may be the last free peoples in Europe, with the US unwilling to help following a casualty heavy war with Japan in the Pacific.

But the European Allies rally, eventually smashing the Soviet War machine.

Now I want to replay Red Alert :)
 
Fighting a colonial war at the edge of the world isn't the same as fighting a global coalition. The resources utilized weren't even a fraction of the British total.

If the British struggled to project their power fighting against a tiny Boer army, how are they going to fight a global coalition of major powers?

Besides, we know from WWI that they had trouble defeating Germany even when allied with France and Russia. So why would this same Britain be able to fight everyone by itself?
 
Fighting a colonial war at the edge of the world isn't the same as fighting a global coalition. The resources utilized weren't even a fraction of the British total.

But OTOH fighting a global coalition (if it is truly "global") means that the British resources are being spread all over the world instead of being concentrated in one or two places and that the opponents have initiative on their side because a big part of the British naval resources would be needed to defend very long communication lines.
 
The soviets are the obvious choice here, the PoD does not even have to be that late - a WW1 point is sufficient.

Avert the successful rise of nazism in Germany by hitler dying in the war or not getting the backers he did, what have you. With the general dissatisfaction with both the old conservatives and the current status of Weimar Germany in the 1920s and 30s, a sizable number of people naturally gravitate towards extremists spouting bullshit solutions to the common man's problems. Without a unified far right, the far left will be triumphant in this timeline's Germany, but will likely be even more unpalatable to the largely Junker-led German military. This will lead to a civil war, with the communists having manpower but poor leadership, while the conservatives have excellent well-led elite troops, but only in small numbers. The soviets, claiming to support the will of the German ploretariat, push west. This time, due perhaps to more Polish troops on their western border watching the chaos in Germany, there is no miracle on the Vistula. The former Entente powers react, but both see their own communist fifth columns try to cause as much chaos as possible, thus allowing for the soviets to largely overrun Germany.
 
Germany is perhaps most favored to be 'the bad guy' in any World War, not because Germans are innately evil or ambitious or something but for deeper, larger reasons. Let's look at this like we are solving a mystery. Our crime is World War while 'being Evil'. (While this is of course a judgement call, we can guess our any TL might judge a power.). Let us examine Method, Opportunity, Motive for Germany and see why it is so special (and what other nation or power can take its place).

Method: We can scratch most nations for simply lacking the means to fight in a World War. While our culprit doesn't need to fight alone, a Bad Guy should be a super power strong enough to fight off a horde of foes. An evil 'alliance' doesn't really work or make sense. Germany is a heavily industrialized nation right in the heart of Europe, the hotbed of technological capability in the time period we are interested in. With a highly industrial economy, excellent educational system and talented bureaucracy Germany can, under many kinds of leadership fight powers many times its size. Also, it has a long and well regarded military tradition going back to Frederick the Great or farther. this is not very rare of course (everyone from France to Russia or Turkey has this) but it would be foolish to ignore the very real martial strain Prussia gave Germany. Germany also, under many regimes, has the will for war (like most n nations). Germany certainly has the means to fight a World War with a hope of winning.

Opportunity: A World War is a feature of only a limited time frame in the early Second Industrial Revolution. While thee have been global wars before (The Seven years War comes to mind), what we generally consider a World War seems to require mass industrialization, total war and a truly global set of threats and circumstances. Unlike many nations Germany is coming to age at exactly the same time. In many ways Germany is a child of both nationalism and industrialization (much like the USA, actually). Germany is also uniquely placed to fight such a World War. Unlike say, Japan, it is located at the very center of European (and in this time period world) politics. Nearly every border is/was located directly against another Great Power, creating a zero-sum situation on nearly every front. Germany is in exactly the right place at the right time. Any earlier and a nation (say Mughal India or Ottoman Empire) lacks the economic/technological means as well as ideological imperative for World War but any later (say modern South Korea or Brazil) and the landscape has sharply turned away from World War.

Motive: Due to the above, Germany is also given a motive. By its very nature, it's rise to power and 'place in the sun' is in direct opposition to the already situated Great powers. Germany is outside, looking in, at the already established empires and nation. It is placed outside the system and wishes to upset it (or at least severely alter it to suit their own needs). Few other nations see a fundamental re-altering of the landscape as required, which is what is required for a World War.

Why do the Ottomans not have an ideological reason for world war? Ottomans at their height bordered indirectly many plausible world powers:

Holy Roman Empire
Russia
Spain
Papacy
Poland-Lithuania
Safavids
France
Etc etc etc
 
Why do the Ottomans not have an ideological reason for world war? Ottomans at their height bordered indirectly many plausible world powers:

Holy Roman Empire
Russia
Spain
Papacy
Poland-Lithuania
Safavids
France
Etc etc etc

Let's look at them.

Ottomans: By the time World War's are a ting, the Ottomans are long past their prime. Yes, they were a major player in WW1 but they could never have taken a central role. They crumbled under internal and external threats rather quickly.

Russia: Easily the best runner-up to Germany in the potential market. Could see it, if things went differently.

Spain: Was a has been by the time of World Wars.

Papacy: Never had the temporal power and didn't even exist in the period we need.

Poland-Lithuania: Long gone by the era of World Wars.

Safavids: Same.

France: A good runner-up. Napoleon showed what France unleashed at the peak of it's power was able to do. But by the time of the airplane and industrial warfare France, probably, lacked the power to do it.


Not saying any are impossible, but Germany was perfectly suited in ways most nations weren't.
 
It's not 1880, but I hope 9 years won't make too much of a difference.

General Boulanger somehow finds some steel within himself and stages a coup d’etat in 1889, establishing a military junta. No more than five years later, an ATL version of the Dreyfuss affair on steroids kicks off. France quickly degenerates into an anti-semitic, hyper-militarised hellhole whose sole purpose is to wash the black stain of Alsace-Lorraine off la France.

Eventually Boulanger brings in the Comte de Paris or maybe the Prince Napoléon as a figurehead monarch. Or maybe he decides to retain power for himself?

She aligns with equally authoritarian Russia and in the early 1910s engages in a World War with this timeline’s Central Powers over Alsace-Lorraine or, as Bismarck supposedly said “... some damn silly thing in the Balkans.”
 
Last edited:
Let's look at them.

Ottomans: By the time World War's are a ting, the Ottomans are long past their prime. Yes, they were a major player in WW1 but they could never have taken a central role. They crumbled under internal and external threats rather quickly.

Russia: Easily the best runner-up to Germany in the potential market. Could see it, if things went differently.

Spain: Was a has been by the time of World Wars.

Papacy: Never had the temporal power and didn't even exist in the period we need.

Poland-Lithuania: Long gone by the era of World Wars.

Safavids: Same.

France: A good runner-up. Napoleon showed what France unleashed at the peak of it's power was able to do. But by the time of the airplane and industrial warfare France, probably, lacked the power to do it.


Not saying any are impossible, but Germany was perfectly suited in ways most nations weren't.

My point was with a right tl, the Ottomans can fit all the criteria as Germany. Say a tl where the ottoman power remains into the 18th century and a world war occurs there.

Ottomans, France, Russia

Vs

Pick your opponents
 
Why would it need such a person for them ending up as a bad guy? Wouldn't it be enough for most of the "civilized world" to get fed up with them playing an upper dog?
Well, you are right. Pure geopolitics could do it. But having such a leader would add some more "oomph" to it, if you get what I mean.
 
As others have pointed out, Russia would be a good candidate for this. POD could be Alexander II surviving his assassination in 1881. He could be slightly wounded, but very much changed from his ordeal. Perhaps he's given faulty intelligence that suggests that foreign powers were behind the attempt. This causes him to continue his liberal domestic policies (creating a Duma and empowering the middle/lower classes) while embarking on an aggressive foreign policy. Alexander II lives until 1898 (17 years longer than OTL), and instills in his son and successor, Alexander III, to maintaining his policies. Alexander II's reign has ushered in much social change and an economic boon. Russia has industrialized and is a semi-constitutional monarchy by the end of the 19th Century. The middle and lower classes feel empowered by the government, decreasing the potential for rebellion.

Alexander II, during his reign, has pushed for military reforms. The military is opened up to reform and pushed to accept leaders basked on meritocracy. By the end of the 19th Century, the Russian Imperial Army stands at 3.7 million (active and reserves). In a patriotic fervor, as pushed by the government, Russia occupies Manchuria, defeats the Japanese in 1905, and makes aggressive moves in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. Due to its immense resources, high population, and aggressive foreign policy, Russia is now perceived by many in Europe to be the next major enemy in future wars.
 
Well, you are right. Pure geopolitics could do it. But having such a leader would add some more "oomph" to it, if you get what I mean.

I know exactly what you mean and this part is quite easy to accomplish: "Duke of Marlborough, an ancestor of an infamous warmonger Churchill" (Tarle, "The Great Norther War"). x'D

Basically, any political leader would do if PR is done correctly. After all in OTL "Cousin Willy" was a far cry from Hitler and Nappy was not exactly an "Ogre".
 
As others have pointed out, Russia would be a good candidate for this. POD could be Alexander II surviving his assassination in 1881. He could be slightly wounded, but very much changed from his ordeal.

Are you saying that he suddenly started using his brain for thinking? :)

Perhaps he's given faulty intelligence that suggests that foreign powers were behind the attempt. This causes him to continue his liberal domestic policies (creating a Duma and empowering the middle/lower classes) while embarking on an aggressive foreign policy.

His foreign policy was as aggressive as Russia could afford at that time. It is just that aggressiveness did not involve any thinking before, during and after it was applied.

Alexander II lives until 1898 (17 years longer than OTL), and instills in his son and successor, Alexander III, to maintaining his policies. Alexander II's reign has ushered in much social change and an economic boon. Russia has industrialized and is a semi-constitutional monarchy by the end of the 19th Century. The middle and lower classes feel empowered by the government, decreasing the potential for rebellion.

Actually, economic policy of Alexander II was a complete disaster. The only development was in the area of the railroads and even their construction was completely mismanaged leaving state with a huge debt. Industrialization started only during the reign of Alexander III and only because, thanks to Witte, he completely reversed his father's economic policies.

Alexander II, during his reign, has pushed for military reforms. The military is opened up to reform and pushed to accept leaders basked on meritocracy. By the end of the 19th Century, the Russian Imperial Army stands at 3.7 million (active and reserves).

He did conduct the military reform and promotion by merit was implemented in the Russian army since the late XVIII so what's new there? Even with the OTL industrialization (which in your schema is delayed by the decades) Russia was incapable to provide enough modern weaponry by 1914.

In a patriotic fervor, as pushed by the government, Russia occupies Manchuria, defeats the Japanese in 1905, and makes aggressive moves in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. Due to its immense resources, high population, and aggressive foreign policy, Russia is now perceived by many in Europe to be the next major enemy in future wars.

Not sure what the "patriotic fervor" has to do with the OTL idiocies like occupation of Manchuria: Bezobrazov's affair was a combination of a pure greed and gross incompetence. Russia could win against Japan in 1905 but the only European country that would give a damn was Britain (not too many years later the same Britain would be trying to limit Japanese naval buildup which brings an obvious question about the wisdom of the British foreign policies).

As for the CA, in OTL Russia grabbed pretty much everything that made practical sense and, again, the only country "concerned" was Britain.

Eastern Europe - even on the Balkans by the early XX Russian ability to "move aggressively" were quite limited.

Then, if Franco-German mutual hate is still there, at least one side keeps looking for the Russian alliance.

So I'm afraid that your "bad guy" is not quite convincing.
 
Are you saying that he suddenly started using his brain for thinking? :)



His foreign policy was as aggressive as Russia could afford at that time. It is just that aggressiveness did not involve any thinking before, during and after it was applied.



Actually, economic policy of Alexander II was a complete disaster. The only development was in the area of the railroads and even their construction was completely mismanaged leaving state with a huge debt. Industrialization started only during the reign of Alexander III and only because, thanks to Witte, he completely reversed his father's economic policies.



He did conduct the military reform and promotion by merit was implemented in the Russian army since the late XVIII so what's new there? Even with the OTL industrialization (which in your schema is delayed by the decades) Russia was incapable to provide enough modern weaponry by 1914.



Not sure what the "patriotic fervor" has to do with the OTL idiocies like occupation of Manchuria: Bezobrazov's affair was a combination of a pure greed and gross incompetence. Russia could win against Japan in 1905 but the only European country that would give a damn was Britain (not too many years later the same Britain would be trying to limit Japanese naval buildup which brings an obvious question about the wisdom of the British foreign policies).

As for the CA, in OTL Russia grabbed pretty much everything that made practical sense and, again, the only country "concerned" was Britain.

Eastern Europe - even on the Balkans by the early XX Russian ability to "move aggressively" were quite limited.

Then, if Franco-German mutual hate is still there, at least one side keeps looking for the Russian alliance.

So I'm afraid that your "bad guy" is not quite convincing.

Well, there you have it then..........
 
General Boulanger somehow finds some steel within himself and stages a coup d’etat in 1889, establishing a military junta. No more than five years later, an ATL version of the Dreyfuss affair on steroids kicks off. France quickly degenerates into an anti-semitic, hyper-militarised hellhole whose sole purpose is to wash the black stain of Alsace-Lorraine off la France.

Eventually Boulanger brings in the Comte de Paris or maybe the Prince Napoléon as a figurehead monarch. Or maybe he decides to retain power for himself?

Boulanger was both A: Not an Anti-Semite himself

and

B: Would likely be furious at the loss of a good officer in order to cover for the actions of a treasonous one

This ignores the fact that without Boulanger his coalition falls apart in rather short order and likely does not last long enough to fight in an alt WWI unless said war starts immediately after he comes to power
 
Motive: Due to the above, Germany is also given a motive. By its very nature, it's rise to power and 'place in the sun' is in direct opposition to the already situated Great powers. Germany is outside, looking in, at the already established empires and nation. It is placed outside the system and wishes to upset it (or at least severely alter it to suit their own needs). Few other nations see a fundamental re-altering of the landscape as required, which is what is required for a World War.

I could get behind the other things of your post but the last part is simply wrong at least in regards of WWI. Germany had the rhetoric you cite but it was not ready to fight a world war for colonies. The only reason that could produce a world war was an european issue - you could never get the socialist on board for world war for colonies and without them you cant really fight a total war. I think that Germany started WWI as a preventive war as other powers - less interested to keep the status quo in Europe - seemed to gain the upper hand. France wanted Alsace and Russia tried to expand on the Balkans. OTOH Germany had no set of territories it really wanted. I think it was Clemenceau (im not sure but it was a leading french politican) who said that the peace before WWI was a german peace. I believe that he was right and what Germany really wanted was to preserve the status quo - which ment that they were the top dog in Europe - not hegemon but clearly the strongest.
 
Top