What kinds of sensitive issues would emerge in a Central Powers victory?

[Admiral_Zann]

I fail to see how a CP victory would somehow create a world without international laws. They would continue to exist and compliance with them be situational as it has always been. Developments like international conferences and organisations trying to secure diplomatic and economic connections would continue in some form or another. Not because of idealism but the simple interest of preventing another war like WW1. CP or Entente, a WW1 that goes beyond 1915 is one that no faction other than the US can win. The best they can hope for is a stunted victory. Measures would be taken to make another July Crisis unlikely. How those develope and if and when an UN analogue develops is open.

Also trying to present the OTL post-WW1 age as a period governed by international law rather than national and business interests is simply wrong. Germany and the Ottoman Empire getting crushed did not prevent any of the atrocities committed by both former CP members or Entente members. Wilsonian foreign policy was all about intervention in countries that did not play ball with US interests, neither Britain nor France had any compulsion about invading countries and crushing people trying to resist them. The Russian Empire was the most autocratic regime in the entire world and would have been rewarded for its own atrocius behaiviour against its disidents and minorites with even more land and influence if not for the collapse. The examples could go on but I'll leave it at that. Denying German and Ottoman war atrocities is wrong. But the sad reality is that none of the powers really had problems with actions like these unless they could be used to shore up the homefront against the other side.

 

[Nivek]

I love how people drum their anglo culture is superior wardrum.

I think colonialism will be still a big point of debate

 

[teddy lives]

The idea that a Central Powers victory would somehow legitimize aggressive war, atrocities or a lack of sovereignty for smaller nations in a way that didn't happen OTL seems a little suspect to me.

Aggressive wars were carried out by Italy (Italo-Turkish war), all of the Balkan states (1st and 2nd Balkan wars), and Poland (Polish-Soviet War), all of whom were not punished for it and got what they wanted from it. Italy and Serbia were both on the Entente side and Poland's war happened after the end of WWI and the establishment of the League of Nations.

Similar atrocities to the Rape of Belgium happened during the Balkan Wars (by basically all participants), the Greek campaigns in Turkey in 1920-1921, and Italy during the Pacification of Libya in the 1920's. None of the Balkan States were ever punished, the Entente supported the Greeks in their campaign, and Italy was a fully fledged member of the League of Nations, and there was no action from the League or the greater Entente powers against these atrocities when it was their allies committing them.

In a similar vein, the rights of small, weak nations did not exactly have a sterling record in the immediate post-war era. The theoretically independent protectorate of Memel was invaded and annexed by Lithuania to the response of a collective shrug by the League of Nations, and the Little Entente had no problems about threatening an invasion of Hungary should they go through with a Hapsburg restoration, once again to no action from the League.

In the aftermath of a CP victory, I would expect a relatively similar level of one-sided concern and enforcement, although perhaps more overtly based on the leading nations domestic and international interests rather than trying to put up a veneer of impartiality via something like the League of Nations.

 

[Admiral_Zann]

As for the issues present in a CP victory, I'll be going with a 1918 victory since that one opens the most doors imo.

On one hand, there would be a ton of internal unrest. Both victors and defeated could see major political changes, both good and bad:

1) For France, Italy, the UK and the US these troubles would probably largely revolve around the war effort and the lack of gains for it. France and Italy in particular would be broken internally after the losses, which may lead to the decline of Revanchism in the former and the rise of it in the latter. A "French WW2" is unlikely since France would simply be unable to counter Germany on its own after the second devastating loss in fifty years.

2) Germany would see a lot of discussion and even violence over the end of the "Silent Dictatorship" and the Easter Promises. A Junta victory is not the most likely, neither is revolution. Chances are that Germany would go a sort of middle path toward more constitutional monarchy, though with a stronger position for the monarchs.

3) Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottomans would face a very different internal unrest. Namely the ethnic tensions that had been building since even before the war. For the Ottomans, the loss of its Arab land would ironically improve the situation, even if the humiliation of the defeat probably spells the end of the CUP. I don't want to make any big predictions since neither AH nor the Ottomans would be truly moribound in such a scenario. But it is likely that they'll spend much of the next decade trying to stabilise and recover.

4) Eastern Europe would be in flux, dealing with German overlordship, nationalist movements, the spill-over from the Russian Civil War and more.

The other front would be that of foreign policy. Here you have four major issues coming up:

1) the Russian Civil War and Communist Threat. How Germany would try and intervene is open in my opinion. Victorious or not, it would be severly weakened and already have its hands full with trying to secure its continental hegemony. One thing is certain, a communist Russia is something neither CP nor Entente want.

2) Japan and its growing influence in Asia. A CP victory changes nothing in the Pacific since Germany has no way to really reverse the gains made by the Japanese. How Japanese democracy develops is open as well but no matter what regime sits in Tokyo, a major asian naval power with interest in China is not something that any of the major western powers like.

3) Germany and its new continental hegemony. It may be a long and hard path toward realizing it, but if Germany can weather the post-war storm it stands unchallenged in Europe. None of the other powers except for Russia can really challenge it and both the Entente and CP members would have to arrange themselves in one way or another. Then there is Germany and its attempts to utilize its economic and political weight throughout the world.

4) The Middle East. A 1918 CP victory still sees the Ottomans lose their southern territories. With France out of the game, Britain would essentially have free hand in how to deal with the situation there. This includes the Arab demands, the question of Jewish settlement, relations with Iran and much more. Plus resurgent Ottoman and German interest in the region once the post-war shock starts to lessen.

That is without the common issues like rising nationalism, labour movements, economic disruption as the war economy comes to an end, increasing colonial investment and unrest...One way or another, it certainly is gonna be a world just as interesting as ours was post- WW1.

 

[Whanztastic]

Internal domestic issues will still persist for Germany and A-H. The Prussian Landtag still has a three-class franchise, which seems untenable at a certain point.

 

[Riain]

I called it!

Now the thread is a moralistic argument about who is meaner.

 

[JamesBond88]

If the US-Germany rivalry steps up despite them (probably) not being at war there’ll be issues surrounding German interests in South America and the Caribbean. Also the US would try to stamp down the German culture in the US. IOTL two world wars took German culture out of style, ITTL the government would be trying to do it.

The situation in Russia, assuming it doesn’t semi stabilize, will be a hotbed of international involvement. The Germans will certainly have a preferred faction, which other countries may oppose purely on that basis.

Same situation with China. If Germany and Japan maintain some degree of positive relations, which is a very big if, they may try and collaborate on influence in China.

Speaking of east Asia, if Russia is unstable long enough Japan may make moves into Siberia, which could draw international condemnation.

The Polish will certainly be restive after awhile. Even if the Germans set up a client Polish state, the regime there won’t be popular. If the Germans expel Poles they may avoid the worst of the ethnic unrest within their own borders, but that would be a pretty heavy handed measure.

 

[NAF]

If the US-Germany rivalry steps up despite them (probably) not being at war there’ll be issues surrounding German interests in South America and the Caribbean. Also the US would try to stamp down the German culture in the US. IOTL two world wars took German culture out of style, ITTL the government would be trying to do it.

The situation in Russia, assuming it doesn’t semi stabilize, will be a hotbed of international involvement. The Germans will certainly have a preferred faction, which other countries may oppose purely on that basis.

Whatever happens with US-German relations, they're very unlikely to reach the nadir they did in OTL after US entry into the war if the US instead stays neutral (which most CP victory scenarios have happen). I think a neutral US would still see a nativist backlash, but with more focus on "hyphenated-Americans" in general and less against German-Americans in particular. I'm also doubtful that a victorious Germany (despite pre-war having all the diplomatic tact of a wet sock) would be looking to pick a fight with America so soon after losing so much blood and treasure fighting the Entente. With the Kaiser sidelined after the war and a different president than Wilson, a Germany that plays its cards right could IMO reach an understanding with the US. After all, the two both have a vested interest in the opening up of France and Britain's colonial empire's to free trade. Not to mention that post-war Germany needs a lot of goods, material, and financing that only the US is in any real condition to provide. I think it would be quite a while before relations between the two could be described as "warm", but so long as Germany refrains from any brazen expansion into the Western Hemisphere, I don't see a need for the US to become overly hostile.

With regard to your point on Russia, while I agree that a proxy war is a real possibility, I do not think for a second that any of Germany's former enemies would throw their support behind the Bolsheviks. A defeated France is in no position to provide meaningful assistance, and I doubt that Britain would be keen to support the communists who viewed them as anathema. A more likely scenario IMO is that Britain breathes a sigh of relief after the Germans crush the Reds and install a puppet government more amenable to Western interests.

 

[Post]

Why is the assumption always that a CP victory would never lead to the rise of nazism? In OTL Italy went fascist while it was one of the victors. Hitler rose to power due to the great depression and the economic issues that accompanied it. I don't think the dolchstosslegende was the main reason for his rise to power. In an ATL with a CP powers victory there still could be a great depression and a rise of the nazi's. They would still detest jews and communists, blaming them for everything, and it still could lead to a war with the USSR and the accompanying atrocities.

It may be less likely than in OTL, but I don't think it's impossible.

 

[HelloThere]

Why is the assumption always that a CP victory would never lead to the rise of nazism? In OTL Italy went fascist while it was one of the victors. Hitler rose to power due to the great depression and the economic issues that accompanied it. I don't think the dolchstosslegende was the main reason for his rise to power. In an ATL with a CP powers victory there still could be a great depression and a rise of the nazi's. They would still detest jews and communists, blaming them for everything, and it still could lead to a war with the USSR and the accompanying atrocities.

It may be less likely than in OTL, but I don't think it's impossible.

Because even if Germany goes fascist in the 30's (not impossible), it would more than likely look like Japanese Imperialism and less like brown-shirts lead by a Bohemian corporal getting into street fights.

 

[Post]

it would more than likely look like Japanese Imperialism and less like brown-shirts lead by a Bohemian corporal getting into street fights.

That's not really much of an improvement over the nazi's given how the Japanese acted in the territories they occupied. You'll probably avoid the deathcamps, but the deathtoll would still be significant.
And it's still possible the corporal rises to power.

 

[HelloThere]

That's not really much of an improvement over the nazi's given how the Japanese acted in the territories they occupied. You'll probably avoid the deathcamps, but the deathtoll would still be significant.
And it's still possible the corporal rises to power.

He will still be a political leader, but why should there be the need for a NSDAP when you can get Vanilla Fascism with the more mainstream Deutsche Vaterlandspartei?

 

[Admiral_Zann]

Why is the assumption always that a CP victory would never lead to the rise of nazism? In OTL Italy went fascist while it was one of the victors. Hitler rose to power due to the great depression and the economic issues that accompanied it. I don't think the dolchstosslegende was the main reason for his rise to power. In an ATL with a CP powers victory there still could be a great depression and a rise of the nazi's. They would still detest jews and communists, blaming them for everything, and it still could lead to a war with the USSR and the accompanying atrocities.

It may be less likely than in OTL, but I don't think it's impossible.

Because Hitler's rise and the accompanying rise of Nazism needed more than just the economoc situation. Unlike the rise of Militarism in Japan, the rise of Nazism in Germany came about due to a complex mix: 1) economic uncertainty 2) ineffectual government responses 3) a young, unstable and in many ways inadequate democratic system 4) a wide front of factions from across the political spectrum acting against said democracy 5) a sense of wounded national pride that helped discredit the democratic system 6) people in charge which where clearly opposed to what the Weimar Republic stood for 7) luck

Even in OTL, Nazism wasn't even the most likely option. They were already losing steam by 1933 and would have gone down once the economic measures taken by previous governemnts took effect (which the Nazis then took credit for). Its the political games of Papen, Schleicher and the other actors at the top of the Weimar Republic that really opened the door for Hitler.

Plus much of the ideological basis for Nazism would not be present in a CP victory with lasting effects. Eastern Europe is basically their yard to play around in. Germany is the triumphant military power on the continent and would have influence over nearly all German people in one form or another. The revanchism and utter need for domination that fuelled Nazism OTL would not exist in the form needed. Could facism or another right-wing authoritarian ideology akin to it (a sharper form of Prussian Militarism perhaps) emerge? Absolutely. Could it gain dominance in Germany? Maybe. Would it be like OTL Nazism? No. Nazism as in German National Socialism is a very special mix that needed specific circumstances and people to arise like it did.

 

[Admiral_Zann]

If the US-Germany rivalry steps up despite them (probably) not being at war there’ll be issues surrounding German interests in South America and the Caribbean. Also the US would try to stamp down the German culture in the US. IOTL two world wars took German culture out of style, ITTL the government would be trying to do it.

Germany and the US would be rivals even if the latter does not join the war. The US would not like to see a counter to its own economic and political weight arise and a Europe under German dominance is the most likely candidate for that if they can build on their victory. Doesn't mean that they will go full on Cold War but relations will be rocky for a while, especially once both sides would start trying for influence around the world.

And I wouldn't be so sure on the crackdown against German culture. Especially without the war, there would not be much reason to launch smth like that against a sizeable portion of the population. And a American-German rivalry also lacks the poisonous ideological component that made the Red Scares to far reaching and intense.

 

[Deleted member 180541]

Why is the assumption always that a CP victory would never lead to the rise of nazism? In OTL Italy went fascist while it was one of the victors. Hitler rose to power due to the great depression and the economic issues that accompanied it. I don't think the dolchstosslegende was the main reason for his rise to power. In an ATL with a CP powers victory there still could be a great depression and a rise of the nazi's. They would still detest jews and communists, blaming them for everything, and it still could lead to a war with the USSR and the accompanying atrocities.

It may be less likely than in OTL, but I don't think it's impossible.

I always imagined that a fascist ‘Latin Bloc’ would emerge in a Central Powers victory scenario between France, Italy, and Spain.

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

How many people have heard of the rape of Belgium? How many people have heard of the treatment of the Egyptian Labour Corps? Now there may be a difference between the severity of what happened, but i'm sure that that's not the reason why the first is well known, while the second is pretty obscure.

 

[HelloThere]

I always imagined that a fascist ‘Latin Bloc’ would emerge in a Central Powers victory scenario between France, Italy, and Spain.

France would ITTL have lost two wars against Germany in less than 50 years. Why should it go for round three?
Italy either stayed neutral or lost with the Entente, it wouldn't be strong enough to fight.
Spain was neutral the whole time, why should it confront Mitteleuropa?

 

[Deleted member 180541]

France would ITTL have lost two wars against Germany in less than 50 years. Why should it go for round three?
Italy either stayed neutral or lost with the Entente, it wouldn't be strong enough to fight.
Spain was neutral the whole time, why should it confront Mitteleuropa?

I never said there would be a WW2

 

[NedStark]

With the Kaiser sidelined after the war and a different president than Wilson, a Germany that plays its cards right could IMO reach an understanding with the US. After all, the two both have a vested interest in the opening up of France and Britain's colonial empire's to free trade

Actually IOTL the US had bigger beef with German trade policy than with opening up colonial empires, especially when the British Empire was already open. IOTL Imperial Preference was not a thing until the 1930s. German trade policy was quite protectionist ever since the alliance of iron and rye.

Not to mention that post-war Germany needs a lot of goods, material, and financing that only the US is in any real condition to provide

Why would TTL US finance Germany's reconstruction, especially when it most likely would retreat from Europe? Don't forget that the OTL Marshall Plan was an outgrowth of Wilsonianism. And the GOP establishment during WW1 era (people like Henry Cabot Lodge) was even tougher on Germany.

France and Italy in particular would be broken internally after the losses, which may lead to the decline of Revanchism in the former and the rise of it in the latter. A "French WW2" is unlikely since France would simply be unable to counter Germany on its own after the second devastating loss in fifty years.

After what happened in Japan, South Korea, and to a lesser extent even OTL France after WW2 (and both Japan and South Korea were even more resource-poor than France without Longwy-Briey), IMO we should not count out France especially in 30-50 years time - although a surviving Republic wouldn't have tried again (unless opportunities arise)

Italy, OTOH, would have been real bad.

I always imagined that a fascist ‘Latin Bloc’ would emerge in a Central Powers victory scenario between France, Italy, and Spain.

OTOH, the Third Republic had much more staying power than the Weimar Republic, and the sorry state of the French political right between the end of Dreyfus and WW1 would have helped even if they rise again after a war defeat - they would have had much weaker starting point than German DNVP or Italian Fascists. A surviving Republic IMO wouldn't have tried again unless Germany stagnated decades after.

And I wouldn't be so sure on the crackdown against German culture. Especially without the war, there would not be much reason to launch smth like that against a sizeable portion of the population. And a American-German rivalry also lacks the poisonous ideological component that made the Red Scares to far reaching and intense.

"Hyphenated Americans" would have gained huge traction had the US and Germany actually become rivals. And once the US entered WW1, suppression of German culture would have happened regardless of the Red Scare.

Nazism wasn't even the most likely

They were the largest faction by far in the Reichstag. In order to block them the DNVP had to join in. Unfortunately, they had more common with the Nazis than with the democrats.

Unlike the rise of Militarism in Japan, the rise of Nazism in Germany came about due to a complex mix: 1) economic uncertainty 2) ineffectual government responses 3) a young, unstable and in many ways inadequate democratic system 4) a wide front of factions from across the political spectrum acting against said democracy 5) a sense of wounded national pride that helped discredit the democratic system 6) people in charge which where clearly op

Other than humiliation and loss, many of the non-economic factors were already present even before ww1: 1) extreme nationalistic volkism and even anti-Semitism were on the rise in the few years leading up to ww1; 2) the pre-industrial elites, the reactionaries and right-wing nationalists held dominant power in the Civil Service, the diplomacy, the school system, the Courts, and Europe's largest standing military; 3) inadequate democratic system - it was very similar to Imperial Japan in the fact that political reforms lagged behind economic modernization/industrialization & state building - and the state building process was imposed from the top to bottom; 4) the German political right absolutely hated democracy.

 

[Deleted member 180541]

OTOH, the Third Republic had much more staying power than the Weimar Republic, and the sorry state of the French political right between the end of Dreyfus and WW1 would have helped even if they rise again after a war defeat - they would have had much weaker starting point than German DNVP or Italian Fascists. A surviving Republic IMO wouldn't have tried again unless Germany stagnated decades after.

I disagree with your assessment that fascism couldn't have arisen in France. I think even in OTL, without Papal condemnation Action Française had the potential to take over the French government. I agree though that France would not be able to try again against Germany. In fact, France following a WW1 defeat would probably become a second-rate power. However, if there is a fascist regime in France it has the potential to enact the same pro-natal policies under the Vichy regime that led to France's demographic 'miracle' in 1945-1975. And, if this France aligns itself with Italy and Spain the three would prove a powerful force to be reckoned with come the 1950s (I assume the German population would stagnate in the mid-1930s).