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

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.
Thank you Ref, I do enjoy the timeline intensely. I look forward to reading it, no matter what happens
 
As always, I enjoyed the update! The conflict between Germany and the Ottomans over Azerbaijan was interesting, especially with the realignment of Germany trying to back Russia and the Ottomans considering Britain’s future patronage. Although the UK still expanded its Middle Eastern empire, the partition is less severe than OTL, which will definitely make things interesting down the road.
 
I would like to see a giant naval battle, but I actually want the HSF to lose quite decisively.

The German leadership was high on their own fumes and casting about for whatever maximalist victories and schemes they could hatch. Them throwing the dice on an outlandish plan that doesn't really make sense, risks their already established victory, and blows up in their face so they need to handle reality is something that would be interesting to see.

Germany deciding they can just conquer everything and do anything, and then being proven right, is not particularly interesting to me. Germany dealing with a frustrated Britain, that also got a pretty little win to soothe its pride, and then having to walk back their dreams of grandeur to a more reasonable victory? Now that I find more interesting.
 
wSZs4v6.png

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.

Bu there is no such thing as "unnecessary" arguments! It's simple case of mistaken intention... You can agree with me or you can be wrong, purely your choice of course :)
(KIDDING! Oh dear Lord-n-Lady I joke! :) )

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.

No problem it's just that some of us, (me likely in particular) don't 'explain' ourselves well initially and then spend FAR to many posts 'ret-conning' ourselves to where we want to be in the fist place. Your timeline so your rules and while it's great to get deeper into the authors thoughts, (internet validation by disagreement squeee! ;) ) in the end we're hoping to help and ride your coat-tails a bit but in the end it is YOUR story so feel free to ignore us. (We're used to it by now :) )

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.

I sincerely apologize if I've done so, it was not my intent. As for stress... I've been married for over 30 years so at this point being 'wrong' is well understood and comfortable pillow for me :) Others, not so much. I again apologize.

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.

Again apologies as some of us, (again me specifically I'm sure :) ) have inflated opinions about our opinions. Never mind us, we'll sort ourselves out eventually. YOU take care of YOU and if we don't listen, it's likely we don't understand how your opinion could possibly differ from ours :)

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

Called it! Greater Grand Fenwick wank! All Hail the Mighty Mouse! NO not that one...

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.

Which I will admit I finally see after a re-read and I admit that I fell into the usual "Germany wins at any point means KaiserReich TL(tm)" thinking but in context given the POD I don't see that anymore and I can't wait to see where this goes.

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.

Greater Gran Fenwick... I'm telling you it's inevitable :)

More seriously you had my interest and now you definitely have my attention...

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.

Well there's your problem! You used books and facts when the INTERNET is right there! :)

Keep going, we'll try and keep ourselves to a dull roar in the background :)

Randy
 
Well, if Germany wants to mess with the Turks going forward, there's always Bulgaria, or Greece, or the Armenians, or mayhaps even the Kurds or disaffected Azerbaijani Shiites....

That being said, I think they are now a natural British ally -- another front to corral Iran, a possible cudgel against restless Arabs, another front to corral the Russians regardless of who wins their civil war, a source of oil and the keeper of the Hellespont. And they are more likely to be a reliable partner now that they've alienated a Germany which has a friendly Bulgaria (and possibly Greece) in the neighborhood. Maybe Ali Kemal Bey can be the Ambassador to the Court of St. James -- who knows, his great-grandkid might end up the PM! ;)
 
Reformer,
I agree that all you highlighted in your argument is valid thoughts. The disagreements are in degree. How much is the Germans compelled? How much patience would the US have? How much worse is the pressure on Germany (compared to 1917…)? How motivated is Italy to keep help blockading Germany (probably not endearing at the peace talks)?
These kinds of disagreements will always be there to one degree or another and in my opinion you are fully justified to move on having explained your opinion.
 
Here is an example from Denmark on how the food balance could change ittl. According to this Denmark maintained food exports to Great Britain because the were dependent on animal feed imports after russian exports diminished.
I would Think that just the perceived German win and prospects of renewed Russian exports might shift this balance towards Germany. Not an example refuting any general arguments you have made, but an example of a quantitative shift in Germany favor. No need to respond to this, its only a small added weight on the scale.
 
I as someone who also sufferers from anxiety I can understand how difficult it can be. Ultimately, you won't be able to satisfy everyone no matter how much research or evidence you get as personal opinion dominates and people can get very unpleasent when their beliefs, even relativelly irrelevant ones, are challenged. Just write things the way you want and don't let yourself get dragged down, ignore the comment section entirely if you have to.
If I wanted a German wank, theirs several other stories here and on ASB that I could read, I started reading this one precisely because it's going for a more realistic presentation and even I f I disagree on minor things, I'm still very much enjoying the timeline and hope you keep going.
 
Cheers for the supportive messages all - and fear not, I very much intend to continue.

Today's update will cover what ends up happening to the German fleet!
 
Cheers for the supportive messages all - and fear not, I very much intend to continue.

Today's update will cover what ends up happening to the German fleet!
Great to hear, I've been deeply interested in the timeline since the first edition (even before I joined the site last year).

Just a few questions, now the Ottomans are out of the war, how do they negotiate peace treaties with the Allies. This is how I see the peace negotiations and their participants, minus the Ottomans (please correct me if wrong):

Laeken (Brussels)
- Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria)
- France
- Belgium
- Luxembourg
- United States (observer)

Vienna
- Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria)
- Serbia
- Albania
- Montenegro
- Greece
- Italy
- United States (observer)

With the Ottomans out of the negotiations, will they be negotiating separate peace treaties with the states they were at war with? Additionally, are the Americans solely attending the Vienna and Brussels conferences as observers, or are they negotiating their own peace terms as well?

Other than that, loving this new edition and I keenly await your latest update.
 
I enjoy this immensely. Watched.

I'd say that something not yet touched upon is that I think Wilson is utterly screwed. The US got nothing out of this except a casualty list, and the average man on the street wasn't keen on the war anyhow.
 
I enjoy this immensely. Watched.

I'd say that something not yet touched upon is that I think Wilson is utterly screwed. The US got nothing out of this except a casualty list, and the average man on the street wasn't keen on the war anyhow.
categorically disagree.

Wilson in OTL had a stroke, almost died, had his wife basically take over from 1919-1920 got taken to the cleaners regarding his peace agreement and 14 points, his party got shellacked, and america suffered over 300,000+ casualties.

What happens here? America fights one battle with around 12,000 casualties that's a *very minor* success. Wilson, rather than having the pressure of trying to force together the 14 points through a bloodthirsty Clemenceau and Lloyd George and give up on nearly everything in the hopes of ensuring an organization built on International Cooperation, which doesn't even get ratified in his own country (partly due to his own intransigeance) stroking out because of it, instead he gets to play the part of "Tribune of the Balkan plebs" which always plays well.

While this would be stressful, it's not what would think enough to give him a debilitating stroke, meaning he remains lucid for far longer. This has consequences far beyond the league of nations. The American Intervention in the Far East of Russia was headless and deeply confused BECAUSE Wilson was basically off his rocker. Given he most likely doesn't have this stroke, he's more apt to get involved which would be a good thing.

I'm not saying the Democrats would be going into the midterms expecting a confident victory nor am I saying that Wilson, who wanted to go for a third term, would win a landslide or even win at all. But it seems really clear to me that the ceiling for Wilson and the Democratic Party is already low enough in OTL that it really seems they'll clear the bar here purely by virtue of some issues not even coming up at all.

Be honest here, do you seriously think the Democrats do worse than THIS?

1920_House_Elections.png

1920_United_States_Senate_elections_results_map.svg
 
Great to hear, I've been deeply interested in the timeline since the first edition (even before I joined the site last year).

Just a few questions, now the Ottomans are out of the war, how do they negotiate peace treaties with the Allies. This is how I see the peace negotiations and their participants, minus the Ottomans (please correct me if wrong):

Laeken (Brussels)
- Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria)
- France
- Belgium
- Luxembourg
- United States (observer)

Vienna
- Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria)
- Serbia
- Albania
- Montenegro
- Greece
- Italy
- United States (observer)

With the Ottomans out of the negotiations, will they be negotiating separate peace treaties with the states they were at war with? Additionally, are the Americans solely attending the Vienna and Brussels conferences as observers, or are they negotiating their own peace terms as well?

Other than that, loving this new edition and I keenly await your latest update.
This is correct, however the United States is not an observer at Vienna (Schönbrunn Palace), that is where it is negotiating it's own treaty officially. It is however an observer at Laeken yes.

I'm not gunna touch on the Ottoman peace after this besides with Britain really, but basically as I briefly touched on in the update, the Ottomans will sort of just agree to the return of bodies, prisoners and ships, mutual guarantees of no indemnities, status quo with all the other parties, etc. They'll sign individual peace's where relevant, with some being sorted out sooner and some later. Probably will 'technically' be at war with Brazil and China for example for a while largely out of laziness/apathy.
 
While the resolution of the Ottoman situation was excellent overall I do feel something significant was overlooked. Eliminating the Capitulations was a surprisingly big goal of the Three Pashas in the Great War. So I feel it would surely come up in their negotiations with the British. I will note that in OTL the Treaty of Lausanne abolished the Capitulations for all signatories so it is not an outrageous demand.
 
Top