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

Does anyone think that with the anti german climate on the US we could see the first and second genarations of german migrants coming back?
 
Nice treaty with both sides coming a balanced unhappy peace deal.

Now the end is drying the blood shall flow.
Does anyone think that with the anti german climate on the US we could see the first and second genarations of german migrants coming back?
If they do I can imagine plenty of Germans having ''nativists'' feelings they did not have to starve, likely have a bit more cash than the average German currently but well Germany could also do with a lot more young men so the elite would definitely shut it down.
 
Does anyone think that with the anti german climate on the US we could see the first and second genarations of german migrants coming back?
I honestly doubt this, simply due to the accounts I've read about and heard about German immigrants and how they assimilated into America quite quickly, with some going as far as to ban their children from even learning German. Its certainly possible for individuals, but improbable for any significant movement to do so.
 
I think America is going to an Anglophobic period since Britain basically dragged America into a war that got thousands of good soldiers killed for America's first military LOSS in it's history. I could see a re-examination of the British propaganda against the German Empire due to the British monopoly of the Transatlantic cable and America becoming less hostile towards the Germans. But overall I think America is going into a deeper period of isolationism than it did in RL.
 
Yeah I think German-Americans are probably going to feel less suppressed than OTL -- Germany won so being tied to them is more prestigious, Germany won so economic ties are more advantageous, and Britain just reaffirmed that their national tradition of perfidy is alive and well.

That all being said, the Italian chaos will definitely not help American public perception that Italians only bring chaos, anarchy, crime, and worst of all, Papism. Could definitely see a Republican play to Protestant nativism helping to animate the isolationist backlash to Wilson failing and getting Americans killed for bupkis.
 
That all being said, the Italian chaos will definitely not help American public perception that Italians only bring chaos, anarchy, crime, and worst of all, Papism. Could definitely see a Republican play to Protestant nativism helping to animate the isolationist backlash to Wilson failing and getting Americans killed for bupkis.
Does that mean that even more Italians would go to Argentina and Brazil ITTL?
 
what would happen to the German merchant ships that had been confiscated by the allied powers, in addition to the patents. The main problem of all countries will be the payment of their debts, France will be the worst and Germany is in an ugly situation but not so bad.
 
I'm not so sure that German-Americans will be having a better time ITTL. I have no doubt America's relations with Britain are going to be worse, but I don't see how that translates into relations with Germany being better. Some Americans may be angry at the British for getting nothing out of their dead soldiers, but that doesn't mean they'll warm up to the Germans, whose soldiers they were fighting and dying against. Isolationists will certainly make the argument that dealing with Britain or Germany requires a lot of skepticism.
 
I think America is going to an Anglophobic period since Britain basically dragged America into a war that got thousands of good soldiers killed for America's first military LOSS in it's history. I could see a re-examination of the British propaganda against the German Empire due to the British monopoly of the Transatlantic cable and America becoming less hostile towards the Germans. But overall I think America is going into a deeper period of isolationism than it did in RL.
1812?
 
That was the basic idea, though It did not work very...well, except for Togoland and Samoa.
The thing to understand id that very few of the european colonies were actually profitable.
.. about "profitability" of esp. the german colonies ... let me "recycle" some of my posts from not so long ago :
Perhaps you might also want to rethink your alleged exclusiveness in that regard of 'breakeven' of Togo as 'Ostafrika' was also wiggling around breakeven in 1909/1910/1911. During the same timeframe even Kamerun wasn't too far from this point regarding the stately balance of finance of the colony. In general, almost all german colonies showed a steady minimizing of said deficit (aside Kiautschou as there some 'special effects' came into play like serving as a 'showcase' and being in the build-up as a mayor naval base).

...

However, what these balances of the - as stressed - stately accounts miss are the profits made by trade. ... not by stately agencies but private enterprises.
View attachment 761064
The seconde page I want to provide from above mentioned 1915 issue shows hoe the trade balances developed. Similarily 'well' IMHO as the cost/revenue relations above. From a deficit of ~1:2.23 in 1907 it sunk to 1:1.2 in 1912. ... short of breakeven given the shortness of only 5 years.The pacific possessions even showed in 1912 a modest surplus of 1,2:1.

But these numbers suffer from the same 'flaw' as the trade balances of the former colonies today - what we call "Third World".
The exports name only the amount payed for the goods in the country/colony. ... 'dumping' prices as today. What these statistic don't show - or showed back prior to the Great War - are the enormous profit made within the metropole - or todays 'developed' contries as the consumers - by selling these goods esp. after being refined/processed/turned into manufactured goods.

Therefore I would render it well possible that the economy of the German Realm in toto (in the sense of national economy than simple buisness administration as obviously most around here look at the numbers shown) had begun to swing some decent 'profit' esp. given the shortness of time they had to develop their colonies.
... and of some longer time ago :
Well, I have to admit I don't have much knowledge/source on the economical situation and statistics of the colonies and similar territories of the non-german powers at that time but for the german colonies I've looked up some source :
In 1913/1914 following colonies/"Schuttzgebiete" had a negative balance sheet for the empire​
Namibia, German South-West​
Kamerun​
Tanzania, German East Africa​
Kiautschou​
New-Guinea, Kaiser-Wilhelm Land​
Micronesia​

Means : these received more money from Berlin, than Berlin received from them. though their absolute amount was esp. for the last two rather negligable.​
Most of these 'cost' for Berlin came from investment goods :​
railway equipment​
minig equipment​
communication equipment​
and the costs for their installation​
as there were mayor development operations going on esp. in Kiautschou (development of the naval base there), Kamerun and East Africa (mayor infrastructure development => railways).​

Interestingly these mayor regions of ongoing development were the colonies with a negative trade-balance as well :​
Kiautschou, East Africa and Kamerun​

while all other colonies had a positive trade balance after 2-3 decades of german administration. The trade 'neagtives' of the other colonies were also 'dwindling' over the last 5-10 years before the Great War and would most likely be even smaller if the 'public' investments of the state might be de-accounted for.​

So, alltogether ... the german colonies were well on their way to become a considerable plus in economics as well (and possibly even more important) a plus in global political weight
Source for 'short' :
https://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/kai...tische-angaben-zu-den-deutschen-kolonien.html

Somewhat more 'time-consuming :
https://www.digizeitschriften.de/dms/toc/?PPN=PPN514401303
(the statistical alamnacs of the German Realm/ Deutschen Reiches)
As long as we don't know what 'profits' were made with colonial goods in the 'metropoles' such statements about profitability are IMHO rather ... not well sourced

However ... regarding other than german colonies I would be pleased if someone could show me the way to similar statistics of i.e. french, italian, british, US-american colonies. ... and maybe dominions and similar 'relabeled' regions of dependancy.

This Is the main inherent strenght of Germany when compared to Britain: while the UK was very powerful, their power depended on their coloniale Empire. Once the empire, or to more precise, once India escapes their grasp, Britain as a world power Is gone for good, and even with no WW2, the chance that the British can keep the huge population of a whole subcontinent subdued Forever are rather...slim
👍


So tired of Britain being able to get away with this crap. :grumps:

...
... for that part also a 👍
 
Last edited:
.. about "profitability" of esp. the german colonies ... let me "recycle" some of my posts from not so long ago :
... and of some longer time ago :
Well, I have to admit I don't have much knowledge/source on the economical situation and statistics of the colonies and similar territories of the non-german powers at that time but for the german colonies I've looked up some source :
In 1913/1914 following colonies/"Schuttzgebiete" had a negative balance sheet for the empire​
Namibia, German South-West​
Kamerun​
Tanzania, German East Africa​
Kiautschou​
New-Guinea, Kaiser-Wilhelm Land​
Micronesia​

Means : these received more money from Berlin, than Berlin received from them. though their absolute amount was esp. for the last two rather negligable.​
Most of these 'cost' for Berlin came from investment goods :​
railway equipment​
minig equipment​
communication equipment​
and the costs for their installation​
as there were mayor development operations going on esp. in Kiautschou (development of the naval base there), Kamerun and East Africa (mayor infrastructure development => railways).​

Interestingly these mayor regions of ongoing development were the colonies with a negative trade-balance as well :​
Kiautschou, East Africa and Kamerun​

while all other colonies had a positive trade balance after 2-3 decades of german administration. The trade 'neagtives' of the other colonies were also 'dwindling' over the last 5-10 years before the Great War and would most likely be even smaller if the 'public' investments of the state might be de-accounted for.​

So, alltogether ... the german colonies were well on their way to become a considerable plus in economics as well (and possibly even more important) a plus in global political weight
Source for 'short' :
https://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/kai...tische-angaben-zu-den-deutschen-kolonien.html

Somewhat more 'time-consuming :
https://www.digizeitschriften.de/dms/toc/?PPN=PPN514401303
(the statistical alamnacs of the German Realm/ Deutschen Reiches)
As long as we don't know what 'profits' were made with colonial goods in the 'metropoles' such statements about profitability are IMHO rather ... not well sourced

However ... regarding other than german colonies I would be pleased if someone could show me the way to similar statistics of i.e. french, italian, british, US-american colonies. ... and maybe dominions and similar 'relabeled' regions of dependancy.


👍



... for that part also a 👍
It must be pointed out that German East Africa and German Southwest Africa didn't produce much in terms of resources, apart from diamonds in the Sperrgebiet.
The main aim for Germany should be to wrestle control of the Baku oilfields from the Ottomans
 
I think America is going to an Anglophobic period since Britain basically dragged America into a war that got thousands of good soldiers killed for America's first military LOSS in it's history.
The Zimmerman telegram and unrestricted submarine warfare was hardly 'British propaganda'. There were legitimate American grievances with Germany, that aren't going to immediately vanish just because the war is over. In fact, I'm willing to bet US fear of Germany removes their main objection to continued co-operation with Britain: Freedom of the seas and Britain giving up the right to blockade.
I'll be interested to see whether the Americans are quite as ruthless in demanding repayment of the war debt with Germany victorious and France presumably defaulting earlier. I do think they'd at least not demand terms as stringent as they did IOTL, if not Keynes' proposal of mutual cancellations. If they are still stringent, I can see Britain simply stop paying it earlier than the 1930's ITTL.
while the UK was very powerful, their power depended on their coloniale Empire. Once the empire, or to more precise, once India escapes their grasp, Britain as a world power Is gone for good
This is getting massively ahead of things IMO. Germany is in a worse position than Britain as it currently stands. In the long term probably not but it really depends on where this timeline goes - Many of the Brest-Litovsk territories will require a large expensive garrison both to maintain Berlin's reach, and ward off any Russian salami tactics. Whether the Germans get back what they put in remains to be seen.
There are also almost counter-intuitive ways Britain will be better off ITTL. For example, the French took reparations in the form of coal at some points, which greatly hurt British coal exports as the price collapsed. Here that wont happen (trivial point, and of course not better than actually winning the war, but there are some silver linings.).

On colonialism. Britain is more dominant in the Middle East than IOTL. They'll probably create several Arab states under British influence as planned IOTL until the French forced a U-turn. Hell with Russia in chaos, Curzon may actually get his quasi-protectorate over Persia (admittedly unlikely as it was Persian resistance more than anything that stopped it).

he chance that the British can keep the huge population of a whole subcontinent subdued Forever are rather...slim
This to me implies Britain was ruling with force above everything. Force was usually an absolute last resort. Indian collaboration with the empire was absolutely essential. Rowlatt Act was the Viceroy's quid pro quo for agreeing to Montagu reforms, perhaps with a British defeat in Europe, he removes this objection, and so doesn't galvanise Indian opposition as much (probably not realistically)?The high noon of nationalism in much of the empire is 1919-1920. If Britain can survive this, the situation will ease as it did IOTL. I'm going to hope we avoid Amritsar ITTL as British leaders are probably going to be more conciliatory (not that they ordered the massacre anyway). Gandhi may not be arrested which set off the agitation that led to it. Though there is the distinct possibility there are more Dyer type's that resort to violence on their own initiative if they get more twitchy. It will be interesting to see where the timeline goes.

If Britain can avoid messing up completely in the first few years after the war, they're going to be in an alright position in India. Most calls were for greater autonomy within the British system, not outright independence. And in this timeline, the Russian threat is much less, so the British aren't going to be as paranoid about outside interference.

What I'm basically saying is there is a million different variables in India, and we shouldn't jump to conclusions. The situation could easily either be much better or much worse depending on where the TL goes.
 
We can obviously discuss the details, but the general trend was for huge colonial empires to grow more and more unprofitable and economically un sound.
That was the trend in the British Raj as well, and even in case they "just" get autonomy, the situation is just going to spirale out of control pretty soob
 
We don't view that as a loss, at least not in America's history books. ITTL WW1 is an undeniable loss.
Is it though? Seems like a similar end result to me.

Thousands dead, then back to status quo (for America). In fact WW1 would be far less of an American defeat than 1812 as the Americans didn't start WW1 as the agressors then have their capitol burnt
 
Top