Would WW2 happen if the Central Powers won WW1?
- Thread starter World Mapping
- Start date
Extremist ideologies end up rising in the defeated nations, perhaps a fascist Britain led by Mosley and fascist Italy led by Mussolini. France could go far-left or far-right depending on the internal situation. If the latter occurs in France, we could see a "Latin Bloc" between Italy, France, Greece, Spain, and Britain. Russia would likely stay under the Tsar, although with tons of stability issues so they stay neutral. The Ottomans would be occupied with the Arabs and other issues, and they might stay neutral (Up until Greece, Italy, Britain, and France decide to get a few colonies and get aggressive). As for the USA? If Japan sides with any of the factions, the USA would join the other one if we don't just butterfly pearl harbor away.
What POD? If it's a rapid war, "over by Christmas" with the Germans in Paris and Minsk, then there would very likely be a round two within 15-20 years. A war that takes a few years, no USW, and the Entente is forced to sue for peace following a revolution in Russia? I doubt there would be a second world war--the US wouldn't have become involved in world affairs, and Britain and France have stronger democratic institutions that make a strongman coming to power extremely complicated, and their peoples would have just seen the destruction wrought by war in a way that the Germans didn't in the first world war.
Probably. I doubt it would be as simple as Entente vs Central Powers Round 2, though. In OTL Italy and Japan were Entente powers in WW1 and Axis Powers in WW2. There's a decent chance that Germany and the Ottoman Empire/Turkey would be on opposite sides of World War 2. Also as I've said before, France would have lost 2 wars in a row to Germany, paying dearly both times. I don't think they would try for three times the charm.
Why? The Germans were the ones who instigated the Bolshevik revolt against Kerensky.
There's a good chance Japan and the USA would be on opposite sides but there are other possible issues. What's going on with the Monroe Doctrine? Was there a 2nd Mexican-American War? What's going on in Ireland, and is it having an effect on American politics?
Depends on how they win, but it's quite likely IMO. An early victory just means the Entente lick their wounds, but a later win means the Central Powers run into the same "nothing we can get at the peace table justifies the horrid costs of the war" the OTL victors faced, plus the creeping authoritarianism in the post-1916 military dictatorships of H+L and the genocidal proto-fascist dictatorship of Enver Pasha and his merry band of fools, on top of simmering nationalism and radicalism.
Had an idea for a TLIAW/HOI4 mod with Italy staying neutral till 1916, then opportunistically backstabbing France when Russia falls apart after a substantially worse Brusilov Offensive triggers an earlier collapse of the Tsarist regime, resulting in some sort of peace by late 1916/early 1917. Ends up with a fascist! Anglo Japanese alliance vs the US, Italian Civil War a la Francoist Spain, and a corresponding German-Turkish alliance (Austria+the Ottomans and Italy go to war almost immediately over Albania/Montenegro & the Dodecanese, with the latter surviving long enough for Austria to collapse & Germany to enforce a controlled demolition vis a vis Vienna) pulling a 2nd Sino-Japanese War against a fragmented Russia+Communist France; basically, a nega-verse alternative to the Kaiserreich, which I've long felt was too unrealistic and wankish given the late PoD.
Had an idea for a TLIAW/HOI4 mod with Italy staying neutral till 1916, then opportunistically backstabbing France when Russia falls apart after a substantially worse Brusilov Offensive triggers an earlier collapse of the Tsarist regime, resulting in some sort of peace by late 1916/early 1917. Ends up with a fascist! Anglo Japanese alliance vs the US, Italian Civil War a la Francoist Spain, and a corresponding German-Turkish alliance (Austria+the Ottomans and Italy go to war almost immediately over Albania/Montenegro & the Dodecanese, with the latter surviving long enough for Austria to collapse & Germany to enforce a controlled demolition vis a vis Vienna) pulling a 2nd Sino-Japanese War against a fragmented Russia+Communist France; basically, a nega-verse alternative to the Kaiserreich, which I've long felt was too unrealistic and wankish given the late PoD.
Riain
Banned
I don't believe a 'short' war (less than 18 months) is possible, so the CP win is in 1917 or 1918 and involves taking a big chunk of Eastern Europe as MittelEuropa and is bought off with colonies by France, Britain and Belgium to avoid serious border changes in the west.
In such a scenario there will be 4 superpower blocs by the 30s: Greater German MittleEuropa, USA, Russia/USSR and an Anglo-French strategic union. Any war between any of these blocs would likely count as a 'World War' due to the huge geographical reach of these power blocs.
In such a scenario there will be 4 superpower blocs by the 30s: Greater German MittleEuropa, USA, Russia/USSR and an Anglo-French strategic union. Any war between any of these blocs would likely count as a 'World War' due to the huge geographical reach of these power blocs.
If the German victory is a late one, I assume it comes partly from the US staying neutral. I would say a WW2 is very possible. As Brest-Litovsk showed, a peace treaty imposed by the Central Powers is likely to be harsh, and thus lead to a lot of lasting bad feelings.
A Brest-Litovsk treaty that sticks will leave the Soviet Union (and yes, I think they would still likely win out) deeply unhappy, and likely eventually give them an attitude towards their lost lands not unlike France had towards Alsace-Lorraine before WW1. I would imagine the "socialism in one country" policy of OTL would be less likely to prevail with this much lost territory, and the USSR would likely be supporting Communist movements and insurgencies in the newly independent states. Then of course there's the border disputes with the Baltic States and Finland which existed in OTL and will exist in this world too. The Soviets would be less powerful without Belarus and Ukraine, but I imagine they could still industrialize rapidly, and with enough friends they could be confident in their ability to win a second round.
France goes one of either two ways, either it goes the way Spain did after the Spanish-American War, throwing in the towel and deciding to accept that they're no longer a great power, and that a third war with Germany isn't worth it since it couldn't go any better than the last two and would just result in even more lost territory and lives. Mind you, they'd still be fairly powerful in their own right, and as the decades go by and Germany begins to promote the idea of pan-Europeanism (with themselves at the top, of course), a peaceful France would likely end up being a frenemy within their alliance, an ally with prickly relations and a soft-power check on Germany's power in Europe. Still though, France did go revanchist after losing the last war, and I think there's a good chance they could again, since no matter what they would desire revenge. With enough friends, such as the also-revanchist USSR and perhaps Britain, they could probably be convinced that a second round is winnable. I'd say France is probably the most likely of the group to go fascist, and if Molotov and Ribbentrop could get along in OTL (at least for the first bit), a fascist France could probably get along with the USSR for the course of the war, if they find a common goal in revanchism. Italy under Mussolini (or another extremist leader; if it happened in OTL where they won it will probably happen in this world where they lost), would probably be France's closest ally.
Britain is probably the least likely of the group to go fully dictatorial; by this point the institution of Westminster Democracy is well-established and even if they're on the losing side of the war, Germany wouldn't be able to make them give up much (the best they can probably get is the return of the occupied bits of their colonial empire). The second war could very well see France, Italy, and the USSR fighting against Germany with Britain staying neutral. Still though, Britain would be angered by a defeat, having suffered through four years of brutal trench warfare and naval battles for nothing. If France and the USSR are looking like they could go for another round, the stage could be set for the election of a deeply conservative and anti-German, if not entirely totalitarian government. Oswald Moseley just might be the man in charge; without having Hitler to inspire him in this world he may be a bit more moderate, though still deeply nationalist and xenophobic. Sure, the last war wasn't an existential threat to them and they suffered a lot for nothing, but with France and the USSR in their team hemming Germany in from both sides, a short victorious war could seem worthwhile.
Japan could likely stay with them too; in a world where Germany is still a serious threat and the USSR is still pursuing socialism outside of its country, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance has a better chance of surviving than in OTL. Japan has also captured many of Germany's Pacific colonies, and even if Britain tries to lean on them to hand them back in the peace negotiations, with the humiliating Triple Intervention still in living memory, I imagine the Japanese will likely resist the pressure and say no. Britain, already not in the mood to do Germany any favours, probably wouldn't be inclined to push Japan too hard, and Germany, despite winning the war, has lost most or all of its Pacific presence and is in no position to force them to give the colonies back. Whatever happens, Japan is definitely not on Germany's friends list, and when WW2 begins in Europe, it will likely fall firmly on the side of the Entente. Britain, for its sake, had better hope that it can persuade Japan to stay away from Pearl Harbor, or things might get real ugly for the Entente.
In all, if only one or two of the Entente powers develops a willingness to fight, war probably won't happen, or if it does it would be a quick and one-sided German victory. But, revanchists gaining power in some will likely embolden such movements in the others. And with four great powers surrounding Germany on all sides, with them only counting a (probably) unstable Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire on their side (and a few other odds and ends), things might not look too good for the Central Powers in the second round. Hope they've been putting those nuclear scientists (who in this world aren't fleeing Nazi persecution) to work.
A Brest-Litovsk treaty that sticks will leave the Soviet Union (and yes, I think they would still likely win out) deeply unhappy, and likely eventually give them an attitude towards their lost lands not unlike France had towards Alsace-Lorraine before WW1. I would imagine the "socialism in one country" policy of OTL would be less likely to prevail with this much lost territory, and the USSR would likely be supporting Communist movements and insurgencies in the newly independent states. Then of course there's the border disputes with the Baltic States and Finland which existed in OTL and will exist in this world too. The Soviets would be less powerful without Belarus and Ukraine, but I imagine they could still industrialize rapidly, and with enough friends they could be confident in their ability to win a second round.
France goes one of either two ways, either it goes the way Spain did after the Spanish-American War, throwing in the towel and deciding to accept that they're no longer a great power, and that a third war with Germany isn't worth it since it couldn't go any better than the last two and would just result in even more lost territory and lives. Mind you, they'd still be fairly powerful in their own right, and as the decades go by and Germany begins to promote the idea of pan-Europeanism (with themselves at the top, of course), a peaceful France would likely end up being a frenemy within their alliance, an ally with prickly relations and a soft-power check on Germany's power in Europe. Still though, France did go revanchist after losing the last war, and I think there's a good chance they could again, since no matter what they would desire revenge. With enough friends, such as the also-revanchist USSR and perhaps Britain, they could probably be convinced that a second round is winnable. I'd say France is probably the most likely of the group to go fascist, and if Molotov and Ribbentrop could get along in OTL (at least for the first bit), a fascist France could probably get along with the USSR for the course of the war, if they find a common goal in revanchism. Italy under Mussolini (or another extremist leader; if it happened in OTL where they won it will probably happen in this world where they lost), would probably be France's closest ally.
Britain is probably the least likely of the group to go fully dictatorial; by this point the institution of Westminster Democracy is well-established and even if they're on the losing side of the war, Germany wouldn't be able to make them give up much (the best they can probably get is the return of the occupied bits of their colonial empire). The second war could very well see France, Italy, and the USSR fighting against Germany with Britain staying neutral. Still though, Britain would be angered by a defeat, having suffered through four years of brutal trench warfare and naval battles for nothing. If France and the USSR are looking like they could go for another round, the stage could be set for the election of a deeply conservative and anti-German, if not entirely totalitarian government. Oswald Moseley just might be the man in charge; without having Hitler to inspire him in this world he may be a bit more moderate, though still deeply nationalist and xenophobic. Sure, the last war wasn't an existential threat to them and they suffered a lot for nothing, but with France and the USSR in their team hemming Germany in from both sides, a short victorious war could seem worthwhile.
Japan could likely stay with them too; in a world where Germany is still a serious threat and the USSR is still pursuing socialism outside of its country, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance has a better chance of surviving than in OTL. Japan has also captured many of Germany's Pacific colonies, and even if Britain tries to lean on them to hand them back in the peace negotiations, with the humiliating Triple Intervention still in living memory, I imagine the Japanese will likely resist the pressure and say no. Britain, already not in the mood to do Germany any favours, probably wouldn't be inclined to push Japan too hard, and Germany, despite winning the war, has lost most or all of its Pacific presence and is in no position to force them to give the colonies back. Whatever happens, Japan is definitely not on Germany's friends list, and when WW2 begins in Europe, it will likely fall firmly on the side of the Entente. Britain, for its sake, had better hope that it can persuade Japan to stay away from Pearl Harbor, or things might get real ugly for the Entente.
In all, if only one or two of the Entente powers develops a willingness to fight, war probably won't happen, or if it does it would be a quick and one-sided German victory. But, revanchists gaining power in some will likely embolden such movements in the others. And with four great powers surrounding Germany on all sides, with them only counting a (probably) unstable Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire on their side (and a few other odds and ends), things might not look too good for the Central Powers in the second round. Hope they've been putting those nuclear scientists (who in this world aren't fleeing Nazi persecution) to work.
More threads of that same topic, not discouraging discussion on this thread or encouraging necroing the threads below, just mentioning them in case they contain something that you might want to know.
TL;DR: It's probable that a Second Great War would not have happened in a world where the Central Powers won WW1, although regional conflicts would obviously still occur.
Here are various threads that already talk about a potential WWII in a Central Powers victory world:
TL;DR: It's probable that a Second Great War would not have happened in a world where the Central Powers won WW1, although regional conflicts would obviously still occur.
Here are various threads that already talk about a potential WWII in a Central Powers victory world:
*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...
www.alternatehistory.com
WWII in world post-Central Powers victory
What do you think World War II would be like in world where Germany won WWI, assuming it sill happens? Point of divergences: no USW, so USA remains neutral and France surrenders in 1917 or 1918. Russia still goes communist (although probably more contained than in OTl - no Ukraine). I think...
www.alternatehistory.com
WW2 after a Central Powers victory in WW1
There is a list of what I would like to know. Assuming that the Central Powers defeat the Entente in World War 1: · What alliances will be involved? · What tactics and strategies would be used by the opposing sides? · Who would win? The reason for this is because at first I...
www.alternatehistory.com
What would a World in a Central Powers Victory look like on the long run?
In a world where the Central Powers were victorious and also get most of their claims and goals in a Versailles-like peace, how long could they stay dominant in Europe or other parts of the world? How long would Austria stay united, how long would their Colonies last? Would it just delay the...
www.alternatehistory.com
Plausibility Check: A four-way WWII after a Central victory
Last time I posted a different Kaiserreich TL in which Britain remained neutral while the US entered the war on the side of the Entente and the war ended with the Central Powers emerging victorious here. Several members have agreed that the TL is quite plausible so I decided to go a little bit...
www.alternatehistory.com
World War 2 with Central Power Victory in WW1
POD is CP's won ww1. Now, would they be a ww2, and how would it look like?
www.alternatehistory.com
The value of a Central Powers victory?
This may have been addressed elsewhere but it seems to be that its becoming common AH knowledge that a Central Powers victory in WW1 would not have been such a bad thing. Its obvious that the main reason for this persepective is that a Central Powers victory would likely have meant no Adolf...
www.alternatehistory.com
WW2 in a Central Powers Victory world?
Let's say Central Powers win in late Summer of 1918, as a result of multiple POD's( no USW, they go on with their tank projects, more competent Austria post-1916). They enforce fairly cliched peace treaty on France, with France having to surrender Briey-Longwy and Nancy-Moselle department, aka...
www.alternatehistory.com
I do believe there will be a second war. It seems the norm here is that a CP victory leads to a better world — more often than not, at least. The idea is that the end of WW1 caused WW2 because Versailles. <cue Hitler rant footage>
But any path from summer 1914 to a CP victory results in a swarm of butterflies that we cannot accurately describe; so does any path from November 1918 to WW2. Maybe the Treaty of Versailles involves crushing reparations to be paid by France, instead of to it, and a fascist-type leader emerges and starts a new Napoleonic war. Maybe Britain does the same, or maybe they lose their Middle Eastern territory but keep India, and the Ottoman Empire goes to war for the Muslims in British colonies. Maybe Austria-Hungary and Germany end up becoming mortal enemies over a dispute with Russia.
There are many ways WW1 ends with a European powderkeg. A CP victory merely prevents that one particular powderkeg that went off IOTL. It doesn't even prevent Adolf Hitler himself from rising to power as a European continental hegemon that aims to become a Eurasian or global hegemon through a "solution to the Jewish question".
But any path from summer 1914 to a CP victory results in a swarm of butterflies that we cannot accurately describe; so does any path from November 1918 to WW2. Maybe the Treaty of Versailles involves crushing reparations to be paid by France, instead of to it, and a fascist-type leader emerges and starts a new Napoleonic war. Maybe Britain does the same, or maybe they lose their Middle Eastern territory but keep India, and the Ottoman Empire goes to war for the Muslims in British colonies. Maybe Austria-Hungary and Germany end up becoming mortal enemies over a dispute with Russia.
There are many ways WW1 ends with a European powderkeg. A CP victory merely prevents that one particular powderkeg that went off IOTL. It doesn't even prevent Adolf Hitler himself from rising to power as a European continental hegemon that aims to become a Eurasian or global hegemon through a "solution to the Jewish question".
There are many things we can speculate about with respect to a Central Powers victory, but I don't see the Nazis rising to power in such a situation. Germany may or may not liberalize, but even an authoritarian Kaiser-led Germany is unlikely to try to exterminate all of European Jewry. Kaiser Wilhelm was an anti-semite, but he was also disgusted by Kristallnacht. If the Kaiser is powerless that means Germany either liberalized on its own or the military leadership holds the power. Neither of those lends itself to a situation where Hitler rises to power. Also Germany would not have a stab-in-the-back mythology. They'd definitely be the hegemon of mainland Europe and they'd probably seek to be hegemons of the Caucasus as well. I could see them being angry at Britain for not letting them swallow up Flanders in the likely event status quo antebellum vis a vis Belgium is part of the deal, and they may try again to annex Flanders if they think the Kaiserliche Marine is strong enough to break the resulting British blockade.
I wouldn't call this ASB but I think it's unlikely. I don't see Austria-Hungary holding together if the victory is in 1917. Also Kaiser Wilhelm liked Austria and the Habsburgs. If a dispute boiled over in spite of that, I think it would take a major wave of anti-Catholicism to stop Germany from just eating Austria.
In a late CP victory scenario that may happen, but you'd need someone very stupid to rule in both France and Soviet Union/Russia/whatever emerges from the ashes of the RCW.
If that happens, the France-Russia axis is, as I see it, doomed to fall in a matter of weeks: France was seriously weaker than Germany OTL after having won round 1: the sheer truth is that they lack the industrial and demographic base to tackle on Germany without massive help from the outsider; in this scenario they would have suffered massive industrial destruction, which without reparations would take veeeery long to fix, plus they would have reasonably suffered even more casualties.
Concerning Russia, After a Brest-Litowsk style peace, they would just lack strategic depth: St. Petersburg would be just days away from the border, Moscow maybe a week, Stalingrad a week more or less; also the Russian would have lost access to Caucasian oil in the peace, and would have lost 9/10 of their coal production, most fertile lands and a huge share of their manpower base: Indeed in a late CP victory, I expect the RCW to be a bloodier, lenghtier conflict, with famine and widespread starvation on an even greater scale than OTL.
That said some puctualizations:
1) speaking of "victory malaise" when dealing with the Germans is utter nonsense: victory malaise very much applied to the western Entente cultural substrate. Germany had a very different set of national values and societal background: militarism was deeply entrenched into their culture and it would have just been vindicated by their recent victory.
Many people naively believe that their successes in early WW2 ushered in some way from the fact that losing WW1 pushed them to innovate: this ks just false: German successes early on in WW2 were mostly the extreme vindication of traditional prussian military establishment, not of some inexistent Weimar or Nazi military school; most theorists of the German war effort had served in the great war and started elaborating their ideas during or right after the conflict.
B) UK would likely stay out of this round, as they would correctly see Franco-Russian efforts as doomed. Even if they join, they would quickly quit after France and/or Russia falls, especially if Germany Is the attacked party.
C) I see no reason for Germany to approach Japan: at the very maximum they would approach the US in hope of regaining their lost pacific colonies
If that happens, the France-Russia axis is, as I see it, doomed to fall in a matter of weeks: France was seriously weaker than Germany OTL after having won round 1: the sheer truth is that they lack the industrial and demographic base to tackle on Germany without massive help from the outsider; in this scenario they would have suffered massive industrial destruction, which without reparations would take veeeery long to fix, plus they would have reasonably suffered even more casualties.
Concerning Russia, After a Brest-Litowsk style peace, they would just lack strategic depth: St. Petersburg would be just days away from the border, Moscow maybe a week, Stalingrad a week more or less; also the Russian would have lost access to Caucasian oil in the peace, and would have lost 9/10 of their coal production, most fertile lands and a huge share of their manpower base: Indeed in a late CP victory, I expect the RCW to be a bloodier, lenghtier conflict, with famine and widespread starvation on an even greater scale than OTL.
That said some puctualizations:
1) speaking of "victory malaise" when dealing with the Germans is utter nonsense: victory malaise very much applied to the western Entente cultural substrate. Germany had a very different set of national values and societal background: militarism was deeply entrenched into their culture and it would have just been vindicated by their recent victory.
Many people naively believe that their successes in early WW2 ushered in some way from the fact that losing WW1 pushed them to innovate: this ks just false: German successes early on in WW2 were mostly the extreme vindication of traditional prussian military establishment, not of some inexistent Weimar or Nazi military school; most theorists of the German war effort had served in the great war and started elaborating their ideas during or right after the conflict.
B) UK would likely stay out of this round, as they would correctly see Franco-Russian efforts as doomed. Even if they join, they would quickly quit after France and/or Russia falls, especially if Germany Is the attacked party.
C) I see no reason for Germany to approach Japan: at the very maximum they would approach the US in hope of regaining their lost pacific colonies
Last edited:
A second world war? For this we would have to look at which parties would be able to fight such a war at all:
First, the former Entente:
The Soviet Republic of Russia or the Soviet Union with the Central Asian and Caucasian republics has no Ukraine and no Belarus. With that, there is a lack of industrial capacity and food production area. Even if Germany vacates the notoriously unstable Hetmanate Ukraine in the 1920s and the Soviet Union recaptures it, the Soviet Union would need powerful allies.
France has lost two wars against Germany and important resource areas within 40 years. Why should it go to war against Germany a third time, knowing full well that defeat would mean even heavier losses?
Britain's foreign policy will certainly be anti-German in such a scenario, since preventing a continental European hegemon has been foreign policy since the end of Splendid Isolation. The question is, however, if it will have the will and the possibility to challenge Germany through war.
Now to the Central Powers:
Austria-Hungary will be happy to have survived the last war relatively whole and will want to stay out of major conflicts.
The Ottoman Empire - minus the Arabian Peninsula - will certainly not feel the need to recapture notoriously rebellious arab areas.
Germany, on the other hand, has an interest in maintaining the status quo at any price - with Central Europe and the annexations, it has managed to establish itself as a European hegemon.
The wild card in this scenario are the peoples of the Central Europe project: will there be rebellions at the beginning of the Great Depression that Germany will violently put down? Or will they accept a regime that is a little unfavorable to them because economic prosperity will still reach them?
First, the former Entente:
The Soviet Republic of Russia or the Soviet Union with the Central Asian and Caucasian republics has no Ukraine and no Belarus. With that, there is a lack of industrial capacity and food production area. Even if Germany vacates the notoriously unstable Hetmanate Ukraine in the 1920s and the Soviet Union recaptures it, the Soviet Union would need powerful allies.
France has lost two wars against Germany and important resource areas within 40 years. Why should it go to war against Germany a third time, knowing full well that defeat would mean even heavier losses?
Britain's foreign policy will certainly be anti-German in such a scenario, since preventing a continental European hegemon has been foreign policy since the end of Splendid Isolation. The question is, however, if it will have the will and the possibility to challenge Germany through war.
Now to the Central Powers:
Austria-Hungary will be happy to have survived the last war relatively whole and will want to stay out of major conflicts.
The Ottoman Empire - minus the Arabian Peninsula - will certainly not feel the need to recapture notoriously rebellious arab areas.
Germany, on the other hand, has an interest in maintaining the status quo at any price - with Central Europe and the annexations, it has managed to establish itself as a European hegemon.
The wild card in this scenario are the peoples of the Central Europe project: will there be rebellions at the beginning of the Great Depression that Germany will violently put down? Or will they accept a regime that is a little unfavorable to them because economic prosperity will still reach them?
It depends on who they have on their side. If Germany looks like it's in a losing war, they're going to jump in. I don't know how that would come about though.
EDIT
Reading some of the other posts. People are making good points. Germany might be seen as too strong to remove and I doubt Britain would be willing to fight Germany without French or Russian support.
Last edited:
The issue for a WW2 in a CP win scenario is France, who gave everything it had in WW1, and just doesn't have much left for WW2.
Which is also an issue for Britain who kinda needs a continental power to do its “bidding”, and the open options are a bit of an issue.
And any kind of World War needs coalitions, and I just don't see any big enough in the timeframe between WW1 and Nukes.
Which is also an issue for Britain who kinda needs a continental power to do its “bidding”, and the open options are a bit of an issue.
And any kind of World War needs coalitions, and I just don't see any big enough in the timeframe between WW1 and Nukes.
I think a coalition could easily form because, while any of these individual countries or an alliance of them that's too small would be easily defeated by Germany, the fact is that Germany is likely to impose a very harsh peace treaty on as many of the Entente powers as it can if it wins WW1. So to an even greater extent than the OTL Treaty of Versailles, this alternate WW1 will leave a whole lot of lasting bad feelings in all the Entente nations. Revanchist movements will definitely appear in multiple countries, and even if they don't gain power at first, or do so in only one or two countries, the fact that they're a presence in all these countries will embolden them. Once they take power in one country, others could follow. The bigger the coalition gets, the more confident new members feel about joining up. Even if exhausted from WW1, they'll have had 20-odd years to recover, and I think the fact is that a German victory and the concessions they force out of the defeated, will have angered enough countries that they could join up into a coalition big enough to plausibly strike back at Germany.
France might not want to fight Germany again, but Russia probably will.