To the Victor, Go the Spoils (Redux): A Plausible Central Powers Victory

[embo]

It's not simply a tit for tat arrangement, as German franchise is incredibly misleading due in large part to the 3 class voting system. It is more inherently flawed than Britain's property requirements for voting.

The German Empire didn't have a 3 class voting system, individual state for their own parliaments had voting tiers, in the case of prussia it was 3, but for exemple Württemberg and Bavaria had none.

The Reichstags elections had no tiers...

 

[AustrianFanboy]

Can we please calm down here? It's just an alternate history timeline, I don't think it's flamewar worthy.

I strongly agree, some people seem to think otherwise

 

[RanulfC]

So, I can speak a little bit here, but I suggest waiting for the US update proper as right now the position of Wilson and the country as a whole hasn't really been explained ittl. Just be patient

"Patience is a virtue"
"Not right now it's not!"


I'd really like to argue the "points" more but this and CalBear are correct and let's face it this IS the authors story so while we can joggle elbows and argue the points we should likely NOT ruin the flow too much

Personally my 'take' so far is Europe is going to be a wreck for several decades at least with no clear 'winner' while America dives even harder into it's "militant isolationism" than it did OTL. Rather than a "Kaiser-wank" I've a suspicion this may be more a Japan/China wank in the making

Randy

 

[AustrianFanboy]

"Patience is a virtue"
"Not right now it's not!"


I'd really like to argue the "points" more but this and CalBear are correct and let's face it this IS the authors story so while we can joggle elbows and argue the points we should likely NOT ruin the flow too much

Personally my 'take' so far is Europe is going to be a wreck for several decades at least with no clear 'winner' while America dives even harder into it's "militant isolationism" than it did OTL. Rather than a "Kaiser-wank" I've a suspicion this may be more a Japan/China wank in the making

Randy

Likely
Well....if you skip WW2, It Is a Europe-wank by default

 

[RanulfC]

Likely
Well....if you skip WW2, It Is a Europe-wank by default

Given what we're seeing so far there may not BE a "World War II" as we understand it though.

Actually we've all be fooled anyway... It's a Grand Fenwick wank

Randy

 

[AustrianFanboy]

Given what we're seeing so far there may not BE a "World War II" as we understand it though.

Actually we've all be fooled anyway... It's a Grand Fenwick wank

Randy

Ha! 😅🤗

 

[Gudestein]

I’ll sum up my perspective. The discussion is on who is in the most hurry to end the war. The author thinks Germany and that they are in a lot of hurry. Personally I am not convinced by the arguments put forward that the balance is right here, but I don’t need to be either. I like the TL so far despite a point of disagreement.
Having everyone agree is almost impossible anyway.

 

[AustrianFanboy]

I’ll sum up my perspective. The discussion is on who is in the most hurry to end the war. The author thinks Germany and that they are in a lot of hurry. Personally I am not convinced by the arguments put forward that the balance is right here, but I don’t need to be either. I like the TL so far despite a point of disagreement.
Having everyone agree is almost impossible anyway.

My personal take on the subject is that both parties would be in a hurry, even though for different reasons

 

[Godwin]

The German Empire didn't have a 3 class voting system, individual state for their own parliaments had voting tiers, in the case of prussia it was 3, but for exemple Württemberg and Bavaria had none.

The Reichstags elections had no tiers...

Correct! I did conflate the two by mistake. That said, to assert that the reich was comparable to Britain in terms of political power of the legislature or that the reich did not serve as a more authoritarian state that frequently meddled in legislative elections is a historical and dishonest.
Edit: it also shouldn't serve as a surprise to anybody that Prussia, the largest and most relevant German state had the most extreme forms of electoral disenfranchisement while the catholic south was less influenced by the state.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I've just speed read through this and I gotta say... I like it. I've dabbled with broad ideas on a CP Victory in 1918 before, but my own knowledge is not sufficient to write a whole TL on the subject. I really enjoy how you're handling this with regards to Germany not quite getting everything that they want, and also having to face realistic consequences on the economic and political front from a late victory.

Looking forward to how this goes. Can't wait to see what's up in the East!

 

[Seandineen]

I don't think the Reds will win the civil war ITTL.
Germans were far more willing to provide weapons and supplies to the Whites than the Allies, but Germany's own defeat and revolutions had ended their support. Entente was unwilling to send help, even though Kolchak was willing and able to pay for material with gold (having seized Imperial reserves). Hindenburg and Ludendorf wanted to strangle the Red Beast in it's crib. Civilian government was more skeptical, but the prestige of military is now immense, so they'll be able to push for some sort "strategic intervention".
Vulunteer Army is right on the border of German sphere, they'll probably receive a lot of obsolete equipment that Germans will have to spare.

Would Denkin or perhaps Kolchak serve as A horthy style, Regent for Alexis, or Prince Cyril?

 

[Count]

One thing to note is that 'White' is an extremely broad category. There were German-backed Whites who were doing quite well, this is true, but the most meaningful interventions were by the Allies in favour of their Whites - which makes sense! The Germans had their treaty with the Bolsheviks, they had the lands they wanted and supplies they needed, at least on paper, and regime change would be very risky. This is especially the case when one considers that most of the White leadership were military men and Russian nationalists who opposed Brest-Litovsk and supported re-entering the war to fulfil Russia's obligations to her allies. Furthermore, while one shouldn't demean the Russian Civil War, the fact is that the Reds always had certain key advantages that are unlikely to change.

Firstly, they had a central position - this will remain the case, even if the German Whites are able to better threaten Petrograd the Russians will still be able to reinforce the city and cut off the small White army there, which would find it difficult to support itself.

Secondly, the plain fact of the matter is that the Whites were hated by the general population - that wasn't inevitable, they started out dominated by social democrats, SRs and other progressives but as the war went on the military commanders in the alliance naturally dominated, helped by the fact that foreign backers generally preferred them to socialists just a few shades lighter than the Communists.

Given that Germany's leadership was more right-wing at this point than that of France or Russia, it's unlikely that they differ in this respect - the Russian Communists are already suitable if unhappy neighbours, and if their existence is a sufficient eyesore that yet another war is considered worth the expense the Germans are hardly going to wage war on behalf of the SRs - who are, let me repeat, avowed defencists opposed to German aggrandisement.

 

[ZMF]

Just binged through this, very nicely done. Excited to see how the peace negotiations continue and how Austria-Hungary becomes integralist.

 

[Ombra]

I, for one, wanted to congratulate the author on a fantastic timeline, one that is keeping me company at what is a very difficult time in my personal life, and for which daily updates I am incredibly grateful. I followed the original and seeing its return is easily one of the best things to happen to the post 1900 forum this month. It pains me that so many WW1 timeline discussions precipitate into acrimony so easily. I think it would be opportune and better for everyone if we put a lid on this and enjoy the story unfold.

 

[TheReformer]

The Ottoman Armistice
September - October 1918​

By November Britain was on the precipice of more dramatic political upheaval. The country had been due an election since 1915, with the planned vote having been suspended due to the war. By December, the British people would have been waiting nearly four years since the previous election - almost an entire Parliamentary term without a say in their governance.

For many in the UK this was growing increasingly tiresome, especially since the War Cabinet had collapsed and the Conservatives now governed alone with the support of some Coalition Liberals under Lloyd George. A politically exhausted H. H. Asquith, who had proven to be a weak war leader and now continued to prove a man beyond his time politically, remained leader of the Opposition while most Britons looked to Labour’s William Adamson as the real alternative.

With the war over in Europe and peace literally being discussed as Britain fought on, many ordinary Britons increasingly viewed the conflict as pointless. The military gains in the middle east had raised the hopes of many that there would soon be a settlement, but yet the fall of Adana had taken place a month prior and still fighting raged in the Taurus Mountains.

The Ottomans, to their credit, seemed determined to fight on with German arms despite their rapidly declining strength. While the Ottomans had initially had a large army in 1914, by 1918 the country had essentially been in a non-stop war since 1911, first with Italy, then the Balkan powers twice, and then the world war.

Unfortunately though, having successfully seized Baku and its vital oil fields and established the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic, the Ottomans had inadvertently infuriated the German Government who had been locked in a ‘race’ with the Turks to the city. Germany, for its part, was determined that Azerbaijan would become a neutral state with a German supported Government and full oil extraction rights being held by Germany.

In this they were of course willing to be conciliatory to the Turks, however the Turkish Government - determined to control Azerbaijan and the oil themselves, had undermined German claims to provide security to the Georgian Government after the Army of the Caucuses engaged Georgian units in June at Vorontsovka. In the aftermath of the engagement, Hans von Seeckt had been dispatched to meet with Enver Pasha, and Vehip Pasha had been fired from his role in the army. Worse still, Germany had briefly threatened to withdraw all support from the Turks, leaving the Turks concerned that Germany would not be a reliable partner in the future.

This was a fair assumption, and the Germans in fact were so determined to prevent the Turks from advancing that they even sought out the Soviets to stop them. In August, having recognized they lacked the strength to directly seize Azerbaijan, the Germans and the Bolsheviks agreed that if Germany were able to prevent the advance of the Army of Islam, they would annex Azerbaijan and permit the Germans to receive 25% of all oil extracted from the oil fields.

Germany then insisted that Enver Pasha cease his advance - but he intentionally ignored the request, and instead seized the city on September 15th. This infuriated the German Government, who promptly refused to provide military aid to the Sublime Porte unless concessions were agreed and German industry were given access to Baku’s fields. On this, the Turks were at the very least open to discussions and negotiations opened shortly after - much to the frustration of Enver Pasha.

Despite this diplomatic uncertainty, the Ottomans now felt they had now achieved their main strategic goal in the war and thus their incentive to remove Britain from the conflict grew significantly. Britain, after all, was the only state besides Germany with forces near Baku, and thus the only state capable of threatening Ottoman control of its oil.

Further, the Ottomans were plainly running out of manpower and ammunition, and would benefit from a force to balance the influence of Germany in Europe and Bulgaria in the Balkans. With Germany seeming an intimidating continentally dominant power now, and German diplomatic pressure visibly bullying the Ottoman Government over matters of economic policy, the Government decided to act. On October 30th the Ottoman Government dispatched captured British General Charles Vere Ferrers Townshend to request a negotiated, conditional armistice.

Ottoman terms were simple; the British would receive limited territories in the Ottoman Arabian territories. In exchange, Britain would cease its conflict with the empire and would not demand any financial indemnity for the conflict, and would recognise Ottoman suzerainty over conquered territories in the east, and make no demands regarding Armenia.

For Britain, this was a divisive offer. The territorial claims offered to her excluded Mosul and northern Mesopotamia, and even excluded Aleppo, with the border being drawn in a nearly diagonal line towards Kirkuk from Aleppo. Despite this limitation though, Britain would achieve virtually all of her war aims by seizing Transjordan, Palestine and most of Mesopotamia, while only the French segment of the Sykes-Picot agreement would be lost.

While Britain lost little by simply waiting the Ottomans out as Turkish forces could not easily re-conquer the Arab provinces, the idea of a final peace did carry significant attraction. By forcing a Central Powers state out of the conflict for good, PM Bonar Law could show the British public that the conflict was worth it, and could also secure significant territorial concessions, and deliver for Britain’s Arab allies without a painful mountainous campaign.

Despite this, Britain would not commit to exact borders in an armistice agreement. Responding to the Ottoman Government through an envoy in Switzerland, the British nonetheless agreed to negotiate under the principles of a southern British zone and maintaining Turkish territorial integrity up to and north of the Taurus Mountains - maintaining intentionally vague positions regarding exact borders. Additionally, Britain required that the Empire immediately evacuate their conquered Persian holdings.

The two sides would announce an armistice agreement along the lines of those principles by October 10th, which would be signed by Ottoman Marine Affairs Minister Rauf Bey and British Admiral Somerset Arthur Gough-Calthorpe on board HMS Agamemnon in Kaleköy Harbour on the island of Imbros.

Consequences
The Ottoman armistice agreement with Britain marked the first and only case of a Central Powers partner agreeing to unilaterally end hostilities with any single member of the Allied powers. It almost immediately triggered a split with German leadership, who excluded the Ottomans from any further negotiations with the Allies at Vienna and Brussels, prompting a flurry of background treaties between the other allied powers and the Ottomans later.

The British agreed to the Ottoman armistice on the behalf of the entire Allied force, further emphasising a split between Britain and France over the peace as Britain reneged upon the Sykes-Picot agreement, no longer offering the French any middle eastern holdings.

This was in part out of concerns that the Turks would simply never offer territory to a power who had not defeated them, but was more so out of a genuine long standing competition between Britain and France. Even prior to and during the negotiations for Sykes-Picot, the Foreign Ministry had sought to exclude France from territorial influence in the middle east and, seeing their opportunity, chose to ignore the agreement under the pretext that France had not contributed to the Ottoman defeat.

This came as a bitter blow to the French Government who quietly had been urging Britain to finish the Ottomans off and thus secure France territories that could translate into somewhat of a ‘victory’ in the conflict - though in reality this was a deeply naive hope.

The German-Ottoman split would further trigger animosity over the future of Baku also, which remained occupied by Turkish forces with the Azeri Republic in the region remaining a close partner of the Turks. Germany, while still de-facto allied with the Ottomans, would continue to press for economic concessions, but with the Ottomans out of the conflict, the nationalist Government had relatively skillfully removed the pressure of a British advance and their dwindling supplies from Germany. Without a war, what could Germany offer but later economic investment - investment that now the Turks could themselves secure through the sale of oil, perhaps even to Britain.

 

[TheReformer]

A Note on the Timeline and Contributions​

Hullo all,
Just wanted to say a few things. First of all, thank you all for your often actually quite heartfelt and positive feedback. Having dabbled over whether to get this going for so long, it was very nice to see so much positivity, support and celebration of my efforts. I really appreciate it, and it has certainly motivated me to deliver more.

I do think I need to address the fact that unfortunately the last few pages of posts have often been quite argumentative and occasionally 'shouty' though. While I genuinely appreciated the advice about the potential for a German Naval sortie, I think the comments that followed led to unneccessary arguments and divisiveness, so I want to iron out why I have the rules in the original post, and why I think being respectful in this timeline is important.

First of all, Im sorry if it seems like the first rule essentially says "if you disagree with me, I'll just ignore you". This is a misunderstanding of the reason for the rule.

I suffer from anxiety that is easily triggered, and can quite literally ruin me for days to the point where I cant do any work and I barely even can motivate myself to shower. Unfortunately, while I am very good atg handling that, when I invest myself heavily into a project and I get criticism for it, I find that quite stressful - as I think anyone would.

The problem I find is not the criticism itself, it is the response to that criticsm. As you can see, in my responses to several users on this thread I genuinely try to explain my rationale, justify my points and be friendly doing so. I want advice and suggestions, and if I've got something just factually incorrect then I'd rather know about it than not.

The problem I found in the last few discussions though, unlike the naval sortie one, is that I cant seem to satisfy the individuals asking, and I think this is because of a misunderstanding of the timeline's aim and focus. So, to remove all doubt, I will make it very very clear here:

This is not a 'german wank' timeline, and the central powers winning does not mean they will dominate the world unquestionably​

In my view, this if anything is why I find my PoD so interesting. Such a late German victory, under limiting conditions, creates not a german dominated world, but a deeply multipolar one. One where the British Empire still very much exists, and still very much exerts influence, but is checked by a growing continental power without any serious continental challengers. This goes counter to every geopolitical goal the British have ever had, and thus it presents a truly unique possibility for a truly revolutionary interwar period that would be very different to the attempts at stability we saw in OTL.

The Versailles conference was, in essence, in OTL an attempt at a new Congress of Vienna. Wilson in particular sought to build a new world order and retain the peace - and that set the world up for WW2 when it inevitably (in my view) failed. What is fascinating here I think is that the war, in effect, does not resolve the question of what bloc governs the world. Britain as world hegemon is still the top dog, but has been deeply harmed by the war and still now faces a rival that will only grow over time and press trhe boundaries more. This allows me to explore and demonstrate my academic history in Strategic Studies, and that's something I'm really excited to explain and display. There too is the United States, whatever we end up with in Russia, Japan and others to consider - and that I think will create a really fresh and interesting lore.

I have invested literally hundreds of hours into the project. Some of these books I have referenced in the first post are up to 44 hours long. So when I am presented with questions that throw doubt on my conclusions, I naturally find it confusing when I try to explain my train of thought, provide evidence, and then it gets seemingly ignored.

So I'm going to clarify.

1) No, Germany could not compel France or any nation to forcibly allow trade through her. Look; Germany may have won, and she may be able to deploy forces to stave off Italian advances, and be able to occupy half of Europe - but France still has an army. It's smaller than it was before, but it's still well armed and determined. Germany could not occupy France, it would simply be too exhausting, and even if they launched an offensive now it would work, they would take Paris, but then they would have to occupy a territory twice as large as they had previously - and they'd still not have access to any ports because a British blockade is easy. They have the biggest fleet in the world, and the Germans would be giving the US an excuse to remain in the war - so such a fleet would be even bigger.

2) Britain is not financially ruined. This assertion is based solely, it seems, on the fact that the British were deeply indebted to the United States during the latter half of the war. The idea that the US would withdraw these loans, when they would in doing so bankrupt their debtor Britain, is absurd. It makes non sense at all, it would bankrupt the US creditors and Britain, and it would go counter to Wilson's aims of establishing a new peace - even though Germany has won. Britain is on a clock though, it is just a clock where once expired Britain will suffer irrepairable social damage, not economic damage, but this would not be enough to trigger a revolution either, not unless something went really, really wrong.

3) Germany is financially ruined. She had, statistically, cannibalized her economy by 1918. Her GDP had contracted by nearly a third, she had suffered enormous inflation rates, and she was quite literally starving because the plan to feed the Central Powers with Ukrainian wheat failed - just as it did historically. The plan was just not viable, you cannot turn a chaotic mess into an economic net contributor in a year, and until at least next harvest Germany will have to struggle on - which it cannot afford to do. Thus, Germany is on a clock. There is a famous saying that society is nine meals from anarchy - I firmly believe in this view. Unlike Britain, it's clock is ecomomic, and with economic crises - especially relating to food, revolution does come quicker than later. Obviously because of Germany's better position than OTL, that clock does not expire in late 1918, but would in early 1919. By winning on the continent they merelyh bought themselves time.

4) No the United States is not obsessed with free trade to such a degree that they would suddenly throw up their arms and demand Britain lift a blockade that they themselves are helping enforce. The idea that they would is so utterly illogical on every level it pains me to even address it.

5) Yes, France would give in if it had to without British consent. The Austrians tried multiple times in OTL, and then eventually did. The Ottomans did, the Bulgarians did - hell, the RUSSIANS did.

Now we have those out of the way, I hope that clarifies things and concludes those discussions. If you dont agree with those points, frankly I just dont know what to say because as far as I am concerned and based on my extensive research and studies, you just are factually incorrect. I'm sorry to be blunt, but if you really cannot reconcile with those facts I suggest reading another timeline - this one is not for you, but thank you for reading anyway. Just dont call it implausible or ASB, because that is an immediate trigger for my anxiety and stresses me out where I cant justify it.

I say all this because I want people to be able to enjoy the timeline and contribute without stressing me out or leaving me literally incapable of discussing something with you. If I cant address a point because you wont accept my response, what am I supposed to to? Just change it, despite my certainty you are incorrect? No. We shall agree to disagree, and that is fine.

Overall, I just want to create a plausible timeline, and I want to enjoy doing it. If I'm not enjoying it, I wont create any more - and then we'll all be worse off. So please, just keep that in mind in future discussions. I apologize of my friends here made some blunt comments that may have come across as rude, having confided in them my confusion they sought to allay my difficulties as any friend would.

So, now we have that out of the way I'll reiterate how I started. Thank you all so much for your support and contributions. I look foward to keeping this going for some time!

All the best, Ref.

 

[Ombra]

Been there with the anxiety. Hang in there, friend. This is a fantastic timeline you're crafting and I'm happy I get to enjoy it, but mental health always takes priority

 

[AustrianFanboy]

A Note on the Timeline and Contributions​

Hullo all,
Just wanted to say a few things. First of all, thank you all for your often actually quite heartfelt and positive feedback. Having dabbled over whether to get this going for so long, it was very nice to see so much positivity, support and celebration of my efforts. I really appreciate it, and it has certainly motivated me to deliver more.

I do think I need to address the fact that unfortunately the last few pages of posts have often been quite argumentative and occasionally 'shouty' though. While I genuinely appreciated the advice about the potential for a German Naval sortie, I think the comments that followed led to unneccessary arguments and divisiveness, so I want to iron out why I have the rules in the original post, and why I think being respectful in this timeline is important.

First of all, Im sorry if it seems like the first rule essentially says "if you disagree with me, I'll just ignore you". This is a misunderstanding of the reason for the rule.

I suffer from anxiety that is easily triggered, and can quite literally ruin me for days to the point where I cant do any work and I barely even can motivate myself to shower. Unfortunately, while I am very good atg handling that, when I invest myself heavily into a project and I get criticism for it, I find that quite stressful - as I think anyone would.

The problem I find is not the criticism itself, it is the response to that criticsm. As you can see, in my responses to several users on this thread I genuinely try to explain my rationale, justify my points and be friendly doing so. I want advice and suggestions, and if I've got something just factually incorrect then I'd rather know about it than not.

The problem I found in the last few discussions though, unlike the naval sortie one, is that I cant seem to satisfy the individuals asking, and I think this is because of a misunderstanding of the timeline's aim and focus. So, to remove all doubt, I will make it very very clear here:

This is not a 'german wank' timeline, and the central powers winning does not mean they will dominate the world unquestionably​

In my view, this if anything is why I find my PoD so interesting. Such a late German victory, under limiting conditions, creates not a german dominated world, but a deeply multipolar one. One where the British Empire still very much exists, and still very much exerts influence, but is checked by a growing continental power without any serious continental challengers. This goes counter to every geopolitical goal the British have ever had, and thus it presents a truly unique possibility for a truly revolutionary interwar period that would be very different to the attempts at stability we saw in OTL.

The Versailles conference was, in essence, in OTL an attempt at a new Congress of Vienna. Wilson in particular sought to build a new world order and retain the peace - and that set the world up for WW2 when it inevitably (in my view) failed. What is fascinating here I think is that the war, in effect, does not resolve the question of what bloc governs the world. Britain as world hegemon is still the top dog, but has been deeply harmed by the war and still now faces a rival that will only grow over time and press trhe boundaries more. This allows me to explore and demonstrate my academic history in Strategic Studies, and that's something I'm really excited to explain and display. There too is the United States, whatever we end up with in Russia, Japan and others to consider - and that I think will create a really fresh and interesting lore.

I have invested literally hundreds of hours into the project. Some of these books I have referenced in the first post are up to 44 hours long. So when I am presented with questions that throw doubt on my conclusions, I naturally find it confusing when I try to explain my train of thought, provide evidence, and then it gets seemingly ignored.

So I'm going to clarify.

1) No, Germany could not compel France or any nation to forcibly allow trade through her. Look; Germany may have won, and she may be able to deploy forces to stave off Italian advances, and be able to occupy half of Europe - but France still has an army. It's smaller than it was before, but it's still well armed and determined. Germany could not occupy France, it would simply be too exhausting, and even if they launched an offensive now it would work, they would take Paris, but then they would have to occupy a territory twice as large as they had previously - and they'd still not have access to any ports because a British blockade is easy. They have the biggest fleet in the world, and the Germans would be giving the US an excuse to remain in the war - so such a fleet would be even bigger.

2) Britain is not financially ruined. This assertion is based solely, it seems, on the fact that the British were deeply indebted to the United States during the latter half of the war. The idea that the US would withdraw these loans, when they would in doing so bankrupt their debtor Britain, is absurd. It makes non sense at all, it would bankrupt the US creditors and Britain, and it would go counter to Wilson's aims of establishing a new peace - even though Germany has won. Britain is on a clock though, it is just a clock where once expired Britain will suffer irrepairable social damage, not economic damage, but this would not be enough to trigger a revolution either, not unless something went really, really wrong.

3) Germany is financially ruined. She had, statistically, cannibalized her economy by 1918. Her GDP had contracted by nearly a third, she had suffered enormous inflation rates, and she was quite literally starving because the plan to feed the Central Powers with Ukrainian wheat failed - just as it did historically. The plan was just not viable, you cannot turn a chaotic mess into an economic net contributor in a year, and until at least next harvest Germany will have to struggle on - which it cannot afford to do. Thus, Germany is on a clock. There is a famous saying that society is nine meals from anarchy - I firmly believe in this view. Unlike Britain, it's clock is ecomomic, and with economic crises - especially relating to food, revolution does come quicker than later. Obviously because of Germany's better position than OTL, that clock does not expire in late 1918, but would in early 1919. By winning on the continent they merelyh bought themselves time.

4) No the United States is not obsessed with free trade to such a degree that they would suddenly throw up their arms and demand Britain lift a blockade that they themselves are helping enforce. The idea that they would is so utterly illogical on every level it pains me to even address it.

5) Yes, France would give in if it had to without British consent. The Austrians tried multiple times in OTL, and then eventually did. The Ottomans did, the Bulgarians did - hell, the RUSSIANS did.

Now we have those out of the way, I hope that clarifies things and concludes those discussions. If you dont agree with those points, frankly I just dont know what to say because as far as I am concerned and based on my extensive research and studies, you just are factually incorrect. I'm sorry to be blunt, but if you really cannot reconcile with those facts I suggest reading another timeline - this one is not for you, but thank you for reading anyway. Just dont call it implausible or ASB, because that is an immediate trigger for my anxiety and stresses me out where I cant justify it.

I say all this because I want people to be able to enjoy the timeline and contribute without stressing me out or leaving me literally incapable of discussing something with you. If I cant address a point because you wont accept my response, what am I supposed to to? Just change it, despite my certainty you are incorrect? No. We shall agree to disagree, and that is fine.

Overall, I just want to create a plausible timeline, and I want to enjoy doing it. If I'm not enjoying it, I wont create any more - and then we'll all be worse off. So please, just keep that in mind in future discussions. I apologize of my friends here made some blunt comments that may have come across as rude, having confided in them my confusion they sought to allay my difficulties as any friend would.

So, now we have that out of the way I'll reiterate how I started. Thank you all so much for your support and contributions. I look foward to keeping this going for some time!

All the best, Ref.

Hi,
i mostly agree with your points.
Concerning point 2, my personal opinion Is not that Britain was bankrupt, nor that the US would Just stop lending money. The point Is that British ability to claim money relies on her ability to present themselves as a reliable debtor; they did so for quite some time because they had so much collateral to guarantee their debt.
Now long story short, I am not trying to assert that Germany was "fine" (they weren't), nor that the UK was broke (they were not, at least not yet). I am just trying to say Is that by this point the war Is long past the point where keeping on fighting may be of any use for any of the parties involved, so I think everybody would be full conscious that despite some saber rattling they would better let cooler heads prevail.

 

[Kylia]

Why. Just because? This isn’t how nations work.

“Don’t you know that your citizens hate it when you try to make your national interest a priority during treaty negotiations”

Is a bold geopolitical statement

A simple look at election returns has shown how little 'geopolitical interest' ranks on the average voter's list of priorities.

This was a fair assumption, and the Germans in fact were so determined to prevent the Turks from advancing that they even sought out the Soviets to stop them. In August, having recognized they lacked the strength to directly seize Azerbaijan, the Germans and the Bolsheviks agreed that if Germany were able to prevent the advance of the Army of Islam, they would annex Azerbaijan and permit the Germans to receive 25% of all oil extracted from the oil fields.

Welp, there's no way this doesn't bite the Germans in the ass /s

And oh look, it does. 😂 But it'll probably bite them again.

I can't really blame the Turks for this, tbh. They were only ever allies of convenience for Germany and with Germany. As a fan of Germany the character here, I go 'boo hiss' at Turkey's actions, but from their perspective... eh, makes sense.

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

As a reader that is enjoying this TL to an almost lusty level, I can only praise the efforts of @TheReformer to write such a delightful piece of alternative history.

Thanks a lot and keep the good job, please.