Place In the Sun: What If Italy Joined the Central Powers? (1.0)

[Iraiva]

Yes The Brits would be backing a Communist France that lost hard and just got out of a cival war. The Americans have no dog in this fight they were uninvolved in the great. Why would they want to get into European Affairs?

Honesty a big problem I see in People just Assume that events will play out like OTL. The whole Geopoltical landscape has been altered to think basicly the same war will be fought with the fighters wearing new outfits is absurd.

While you certainly cannot predict future events based on what happened in OTL, I would say that it is more likely than not that the US will get involved.
In the early 20th Century, European Affairs were World Affairs. To remain relevant as a Great Power, the US must get involved. Also, the US just got confirmation that Germany was meddling in its own backyard. Why would it not want to repay the favour?
We have also yet to see the German response to the sinking of the SMS Wohlstadt and Frank Kellogg 's subsequent press release. That response could be critical toward ensuring a thawing or cooling of relations between the US and Germany.
While Britain would think twice before backing a Communist France, if Russia too becomes Red fearing a Red Europe after an Allied victory, if Russia avoids becoming a Communist country, why not? France is close to the UK, and it cannot project power across the entire continent like the OTL USSR could, which mind you they still allied with in OTL.

A past update also mentions that as of the 21st Century, no one knows who would win an actual confrontation between the US Marine Corps and the German Army's Stormtrooper Corps. This implies that the USA and Germany never actually do come to blows, even if it doesn't rule out future wars involving Germany. Just not between the USA and Germany.

It only implies that the USMC and the German Sturmtruppen Korps do not come to blows with each other.

Sure, if there's a next big war it must be so. Because it wouldn't be a big war if it's just round 2 of Germany-AH-OE-Italy against Russia+France. It'd be a war, sure, but France would be crushed - and everyone would see that coming. Britain might support them on the down-low, and even the US might extend friendly credit, but it still wouldn't be a great war.

Russia and France would certainly not instigate a War against Germany without the British and the Americans on their side, so the point is moot. If there is to be a War, it'll be a big one.

 

[Glory2Cabinda]

Molotov Ribbentrop anyone? Hell the entire history of German Soviet cooperation, based not on ideology but mutual interest: overturning the Versallise order. The German order, if anything, is even more prone to causing resentment as a upstart nation getting to punch far above its weight and being more concentrated in one nation with the institutional weight of the Prussian Officers who will be very much of the “Have a Stick, Let everyone know we have a Stick and use it very frequently” is not going to engender happieness in the British population and will most likely push the French and British even more together. Not to say that their going to like eachother but that can wait until after they destroy Germany and divide the spoils.

Do you know why that pact failed beacuse they goals were incompatible. Same with a Communist France and a Capitalist British Empire.

 

[Glory2Cabinda]

While you certainly cannot predict future events based on what happened in OTL, I would say that it is more likely than not that the US will get involved.
In the early 20th Century, European Affairs were World Affairs. To remain relevant as a Great Power, the US must get involved. Also, the US just got confirmation that Germany was meddling in its own backyard. Why would it not want to repay the favour?
We have also yet to see the German response to the sinking of the SMS Wohlstadt and Frank Kellogg 's subsequent press release. That response could be critical toward ensuring a thawing or cooling of relations between the US and Germany.
While Britain would think twice before backing a Communist France, if Russia too becomes Red fearing a Red Europe after an Allied victory, if Russia avoids becoming a Communist country, why not? France is close to the UK, and it cannot project power across the entire continent like the OTL USSR could, which mind you they still allied with in OTL.


It only implies that the USMC and the German Sturmtruppen Korps do not come to blows with each other.


Russia and France would certainly not instigate a War against Germany without the British and the Americans on their side, so the point is moot. If there is to be a War, it'll be a big one.

backing Communist France would only be creating the same conditions that cuased ww2 the balance of power in Europe not being to British liking. The Americans have no real intrest in this European war none at all. Tell me what benefit would gain by overthrowing Germany rather then just trading with them?

 

[wietze]

Also, the US just got confirmation that Germany was meddling in its own backyard. Why would it not want to repay the favour?

no, that is how the us govt interpreted it, it could also be a enterprising german who saw a business chance, and has nothing to do with the govt.
and why not repay the favour? a british armsdealer was supplying pancho villa, i don't remember the us repaying the uk the favour iotl.
plus us armsdealers would do exactly the same in equivalent situations in europe (and they did with britain)
if they will repay the favour, it will be because it fits the current politics

 

[Iraiva]

Do you know why that pact failed beacuse they goals were incompatible. Same with a Communist France and a Capitalist British Empire.

Nazism as an ideology, was so much against Communism that Hitler imprisoned communists in concentration camps. Hitler had to attack the USSR to satisfy the Nazi ideology (disregarding other factors).
Are you saying that the UK is the same? Are communists being rounded up in capitalist countries?
This is not a valid comparison.

backing Communist France would only be creating the same conditions that cuased ww2 the balance of power in Europe not being to British liking. The Americans have no real intrest in this European war none at all. Tell me what benefit would gain by overthrowing Germany rather then just trading with them?

How does merely backing France, communist or not, ensure French hegemony in Europe? France lacks the population or the industry base or the size to dominate Modern Europe.
Wars are not fought or begun merely on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis in the 20th Century. Why did the US declare war on Germany in OTL WW1 then? Surely, by not doing so the US would have gained more?

no, that is how the us govt interpreted it, it could also be a enterprising german who saw a business chance, and has nothing to do with the govt.
and why not repay the favour? a british armsdealer was supplying pancho villa, i don't remember the us repaying the uk the favour iotl.
plus us armsdealers would do exactly the same.
if they will repay the favour, it will be because it fits the current politics

If the US Govt did not interpret it that way, then what the hell was Frank B.Kellogg, the Secretary of State, saying?
Now yes, merely the discovery of the SMS Wohlstadt will not make the US intervene in Europe, but the German follow-up is important.
Was the British govt supplying Pancho Villa? Or just a British arms dealer? Actually, his Wikipedia page says he was supplied by the US Govt up until 1915, and then after wards by the German Govt.

 

[CountofMonteDepressedo]

I personally second a democratic Russia making an alliance with Germany, I've not seen that, so it would be both original and interesting. Bonus points if its Vladimir Vladimirovich Mayakovsky in any important role (or any futurist)

 

[AntoniousTheBro]

I feel like in order to avert a second world war, the peace terms would either have to be reasonably lenient for the loser or so harsh that they can't do anything about it (like confiscating all their industry indefinitely, banning military buildup indefinitely, or breaking the country up into two or more pieces that are forever forbidden from reuniting). Neither seems to be the case here.

Eh I disagree with such assumptions they typically don't take into account is will of enforcement something comparable to our Versailles is enough it just requires Germany enforce it. Even if war does still break out it is one that is much easier to win certainly easier then subduing otl Germany.
Its why I have never bought into Versailles should of been harsher argument because it being harsher requires that the allies actually enforce the treaty which they showed they were not willing to. Hell if they were otl then Germany likely would of been stonewalled completely as Versailles was harsh enough. If you do not wish to enforce as expected of such treaties then you would make it more lenient.

For this is why I find that Germany winning results in a much less likely ww2 and or great war simply because there are already far more incentives to enforce their treaty and a greater willingness back home to enforce it. This typically means that even if france went revanchinist it is quite unlikely to get away with a lot of the bullshit Germany got away with otl.

well germany and russia starting to fight each other is boringly standard, just as russia always being a shithole.
So for russia and its revolution, maybe a nice change where it ends as a calm boring country, west-european style constitutional monarchy & democracy.
so essentially a political revolution instead of the armed one of otl. The different parties are more or less stalemated, so they have to come up with a compromise, which ultimately leads to said constitutional (and powerless) monarchy and parliamentary democracy.

Constitutional yea i can agree. Powerless no especially not in this world where the prussian system has been vindicated. Culturally russia tends to move to more authoritarian leaders a lot and it would take a lot for that to change. Maybe in our world where monarchies are rather looked down on and where liberalism reigns supreme but I doubt in this world you could justify such a degradation of monarchical power.

 

[wietze]

Constitutional yea i can agree. Powerless no especially not in this world where the prussian system has been vindicated. Culturally russia tends to move to more authoritarian leaders a lot and it would take a lot for that to change. Maybe in our world where monarchies are rather looked down on and where liberalism reigns supreme but I doubt in this world you could justify such a degradation of monarchical power.

in the netherlands it has been done for centuries (ok in united provinces time it was called a stadhouder, but it was pretty much the same thing).
it is not about the system being vindicated by prussia that will set the system, but how the compromise is made, and in the russian situation i can see that they would move towards a situation where the czar becomes a figurehead, just because the czars did mess up so much.
and why couldn't the prime-minister of russia not be that strong leader?
and the czar could decide that keeping the throne, title and his life is more important than political influence.
king william II of the netherlands did the same during the revolutions of the mid 19th century or to quote what he said in 1848 "because of the revolutions i changed overnight from conservative to liberal" (him agreeing with a liberal constitution that severely limited his powers) (meaning the total time where rulers in nl had somewhat more power stayed limited to 33 yrs)

 

[Glory2Cabinda]

Nazism as an ideology, was so much against Communism that Hitler imprisoned communists in concentration camps. Hitler had to attack the USSR to satisfy the Nazi ideology (disregarding other factors).
Are you saying that the UK is the same? Are communists being rounded up in capitalist countries?
This is not a valid comparison.

How does merely backing France, communist or not, ensure French hegemony in Europe? France lacks the population or the industry base or the size to dominate Modern Europe.
Wars are not fought or begun merely on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis in the 20th Century. Why did the US declare war on Germany in OTL WW1 then? Surely, by not doing so the US would have gained more?

If the US Govt did not interpret it that way, then what the hell was Frank B.Kellogg, the Secretary of State, saying?
Now yes, merely the discovery of the SMS Wohlstadt will not make the US intervene in Europe, but the German follow-up is important.
Was the British govt supplying Pancho Villa? Or just a British arms dealer? Actually, his Wikipedia page says he was supplied by the US Govt up until 1915, and then after wards by the German Govt.

1 capitalists and other will be rounded by the reds and France the allies and the USSR were hostile before and after the war. The us joined because of Wilson's ideology he lost hard this timeline by the way.


2 they would have troops controlling sizeable parts of Europe do you think they will just pack up and go home?

 

[Iraiva]

1 capitalists and other will be rounded by the reds and France the allies and the USSR were hostile before and after the war. The us joined because of Wilson's ideology he lost hard this timeline by the way.


2 they would have troops controlling sizeable parts of Europe do you think they will just pack up and go home?

Perhaps they will, however Communist France need not be the OTL USSR. It's just as likely that they will not.
True, Wilson's ideology played some role in the US's entry into OTL WW1,however a democracy cannot declare war solely on the basis of its leader's ideology. A fair bit of public outrage over the Zimmerman Telegram was involved.
ITTL, the POTUS when WW2 breaks out and the state of relations between the US and Germany will play a role. Even if Germany does not provoke the US in any way, the US is likely to provide supplies to at least the UK, which in turn will provoke Germany.

No Allied victory is possible with only French troops on the ground. Yes, there will be French soldiers all over Europe, but so will British, American and Russian soldiers.

 

[Glory2Cabinda]

Perhaps they will, however Communist France need not be the OTL USSR. It's just as likely that they will not.
True, Wilson's ideology played some role in the US's entry into OTL WW1,however a democracy cannot declare war solely on the basis of its leader's ideology. A fair bit of public outrage over the Zimmerman Telegram was involved.
ITTL, the POTUS when WW2 breaks out and the state of relations between the US and Germany will play a role. Even if Germany does not provoke the US in any way, the US is likely to provide supplies to at least the UK, which in turn will provoke Germany.

No Allied victory is possible with only French troops on the ground. Yes, there will be French soldiers all over Europe, but so will British, American and Russian soldiers.

The entry into the war only happened due to a weird combination of circumstances one not guaranteed to happen again.

And why do you think the Russian and French would be friendly to the brits they abandoned them the the Germans.

There's no guarantee they will send supplies and money in this timeline that lead to a depression and a discrediting of Wilson's internationalism. Even if they did why would the Germans provoke the Yanks. Did the leadership all devople severe mental disabilities?

Has the author said Britain is experiencing great strife in the colonies they would have to keep those inline.


The whole second war world idea is contrived nonsense. If you were reading the timeline you would know this. The whole cultural and geopolitical landscape is altered.

 

[ByzantineMan]

I don't see France having the strength to take on Germany for at least another 40 years. Even in OTL French demographics were so busted that it influenced their dependence on the Maginot Line as a means of getting the most out of an older army, and now they don't have that, and they don't even have access to their own steel to build up their armed forces. There's too many steps they have to do to get to war at all, and it's almost certainly not one they can win against a Mitteleuropa-backed Germany.

What NEW allies could the French get? Certainly not Italy, certainly not A-H, and certainly not the Ottomans. WW1 already showed that a Russian-French alliance isn't an instant win over Germany and Britain has much more to lose in global affairs. For every theatre the British have, they have an expansionist enemy there. Italians in the med, Ottos in the middle east, Japan in east asia, and now Germans all over Africa. Even assuming that the British split their forces equally, so 1/5 of their forces go to one of the five theatres, (including fighting germany on the continent as well) you have France + 1/5 of Britain against close to 80% of German forces depending on what Germany does with its African holdings. Additionally, you have 1/5 against 100% of Italy and 1/5 against maybe half the Ottos, assuming they are split between fighting Russia and Britain at the same time. Additionally, you have 1/5 of Britain vs all of Japan (buttressed by ANZAC but W/E) and 1/5 in Africa, I simply don't see a British victory in a majority of these theatres. They're simply stretched too thin. Britian will either devote itself to maintaining its Empire or wait for a precise moment to do anything. A WW2 scenario is so favorable to Germany that it won't even happen at this point.

EDIT: So please don't feel like you NEED to put in a WW2 analogue. At this point in this TL it wouldn't be fair one bit.

 

[naraht]

The Japanese are Expansionist, but the question is which European powers will they clash with as they expand in Asia. The Germans will certainly have interests in the Far East that the Japanese will attempt to squeeze out. And I'm also not convinced that the AH or the Ottomans won't come apart in a manner that is going to generate a war between the vultures.

 

[wietze]

The Japanese are Expansionist, but the question is which European powers will they clash with as they expand in Asia. The Germans will certainly have interests in the Far East that the Japanese will attempt to squeeze out. And I'm also not convinced that the AH or the Ottomans won't come apart in a manner that is going to generate a war between the vultures.

considering how the germans already helped AH, it won't fall apart, just slowly assimilated by germany.

 

[ByzantineMan]

The Japanese are Expansionist, but the question is which European powers will they clash with as they expand in Asia. The Germans will certainly have interests in the Far East that the Japanese will attempt to squeeze out. And I'm also not convinced that the AH or the Ottomans won't come apart in a manner that is going to generate a war between the vultures.

Germany hardly has any territory in the far East that's worth taking, if anything. The Japanese are eyeing (most likely) Dutch and English territory. They already have a bad relation with France concerning Indochina and they know that a war with Britain is considerably more winnable if they're in the German camp rather than against.

Germany has too many vested interests in keeping A-H alive to see it fall apart in a way that will hurt them. Ottomans in the hypothetical next round are going to be much more tougher and resilient than in WW1. The arab revolt lost a lot of prestige and can easily be spun by the Ottos as western imperialism masquerading as legitimate freedom fighters (not even wrong) to further tarnish its image. Arabs breaking off from the Ottomans was the biggest game in town for a "come apart" scenario and it just isn't happening anytime soon. It certainly would be interesting if Franco-British post war plans for the middle east would leak to the Ottoman public, as it would be the final nail in the coffin for Arab independence.

 

[Iraiva]

The entry into the war only happened due to a weird combination of circumstances one not guaranteed to happen again.

And why do you think the Russian and French would be friendly to the brits they abandoned them the the Germans.

There's no guarantee they will send supplies and money in this timeline that lead to a depression and a discrediting of Wilson's internationalism. Even if they did why would the Germans provoke the Yanks. Did the leadership all devople severe mental disabilities?

Has the author said Britain is experiencing great strife in the colonies they would have to keep those inline.


The whole second war world idea is contrived nonsense. If you were reading the timeline you would know this. The whole cultural and geopolitical landscape is altered.

The Russians and the French will ally with the British because they need them to have any hope of victory over the Germans. It's simple political expediency.

Yes, there's no guarantee of course, that's why I prefaced it by saying it depends on how US-German relations will be at the time. If the US supplies the UK with it's considerable resources the Germans will have no choice but to provoke the US. It's simple geopolitics.

Contrived nonsense? It's far too early to say if there will be a WW2 or not. I wonder where you get your confidence from. The dissatisfaction of the French and the Russians suggests they will be one, however that is far from assured. They will likely only go to war if the US is also against Germany.

I don't see France having the strength to take on Germany for at least another 40 years. Even in OTL French demographics were so busted that it influenced their dependence on the Maginot Line as a means of getting the most out of an older army, and now they don't have that, and they don't even have access to their own steel to build up their armed forces. There's too many steps they have to do to get to war at all, and it's almost certainly not one they can win against a Mitteleuropa-backed Germany.

What NEW allies could the French get? Certainly not Italy, certainly not A-H, and certainly not the Ottomans. WW1 already showed that a Russian-French alliance isn't an instant win over Germany and Britain has much more to lose in global affairs. For every theatre the British have, they have an expansionist enemy there. Italians in the med, Ottos in the middle east, Japan in east asia, and now Germans all over Africa. Even assuming that the British split their forces equally, so 1/5 of their forces go to one of the five theatres, (including fighting germany on the continent as well) you have France + 1/5 of Britain against close to 80% of German forces depending on what Germany does with its African holdings. Additionally, you have 1/5 against 100% of Italy and 1/5 against maybe half the Ottos, assuming they are split between fighting Russia and Britain at the same time. Additionally, you have 1/5 of Britain vs all of Japan (buttressed by ANZAC but W/E) and 1/5 in Africa, I simply don't see a British victory in a majority of these theatres. They're simply stretched too thin. Britian will either devote itself to maintaining its Empire or wait for a precise moment to do anything. A WW2 scenario is so favorable to Germany that it won't even happen at this point.

EDIT: So please don't feel like you NEED to put in a WW2 analogue. At this point in this TL it wouldn't be fair one bit.

Yes, you're right. However what you say hinges upon the US not entering a war against Germany, which may or may not happen at this point, we don't have enough information at this point i.e it's far too early to say.

 

[CountofMonteDepressedo]

I highly doubt the French will try again, this is what? The second loss in less than 100 years? And their industry is screwed too.

So I think France might honestly support anyone who goes against Germany but an open confrontation without an overwhelming majority? Doubt it.

 

[chrnno]

The Russians and the French will ally with the British because they need them to have any hope of victory over the Germans. It's simple political expediency.

Yes, there's no guarantee of course, that's why I prefaced it by saying it depends on how US-German relations will be at the time. If the US supplies the UK with it's considerable resources the Germans will have no choice but to provoke the US. It's simple geopolitics.

Contrived nonsense? It's far too early to say if there will be a WW2 or not. I wonder where you get your confidence from. The dissatisfaction of the French and the Russians suggests they will be one, however that is far from assured. They will likely only go to war if the US is also against Germany.


Yes, you're right. However what you say hinges upon the US not entering a war against Germany, which may or may not happen at this point, we don't have enough information at this point i.e it's far too early to say.

Germany took Britain, France and most of Russia all on its own while the USA was increasingly helping and it still had to join in to turn the tide. Here France is a shadow of itself while the other two are far weaker, plus you will have Austria and a stronger Germany plus both Italy and Ottomans -actually living up to their names as Great Powers instead of OTL- with vested interest in not letting France and Russia respectively win anything. That is just not a recipe that makes anyone think 'We can take them'.

So while it is possible for the USA to join an ongoing WW2 a few years in, the issue is getting it to start and last that long given the disparity at hand here.

That is not to say the factors building up to another war aren't present, given the people involved an ending of WW1 not like that is really really unlikely, but without the near perfect set-up for WW2 of OTL it would take longer for things come to a head again. Decades longer even, especially for this TL, at which point technology has marched on and that WW2 would look more like 'Cold War gone hot'.

Now if people actually wrote that then I would be interested, but I am rather tired of punchclock WW2 twenty years later no matter what.

 

[Glory2Cabinda]

The Russians and the French will ally with the British because they need them to have any hope of victory over the Germans. It's simple political expediency.

Yes, there's no guarantee of course, that's why I prefaced it by saying it depends on how US-German relations will be at the time. If the US supplies the UK with it's considerable resources the Germans will have no choice but to provoke the US. It's simple geopolitics.

Contrived nonsense? It's far too early to say if there will be a WW2 or not. I wonder where you get your confidence from. The dissatisfaction of the French and the Russians suggests they will be one, however that is far from assured. They will likely only go to war if the US is also against Germany.


Yes, you're right. However what you say hinges upon the US not entering a war against Germany, which may or may not happen at this point, we don't have enough information at this point i.e it's far too early to say.

The British have no reason to ally with A Red France and the problem only gets worse with a Red Russia. They have there own problems to deal with.

The yanks will not supply the British reread the chapter on the 1916 election the loans givin out in the war caused a depression after the collapse of the ente. The yanks will see this rematch and say fuck this. And Wilson's internationalism has been discredited. The American culture has been to altered to support the war.

Yes the Germans have no reason to provoke the yanks has that would fuck them over. Its basic geopolitics that powers will not try to fuck themselves over.

 

[Kylia]

Germany took Britain, France and most of Russia all on its own while the USA was increasingly helping and it still had to join in to turn the tide. Here France is a shadow of itself while the other two are far weaker, plus you will have Austria and a stronger Germany plus both Italy and Ottomans -actually living up to their names as Great Powers instead of OTL- with vested interest in not letting France and Russia respectively win anything. That is just not a recipe that makes anyone think 'We can take them'.

So while it is possible for the USA to join an ongoing WW2 a few years in, the issue is getting it to start and last that long given the disparity at hand here.

That is not to say the factors building up to another war aren't present, given the people involved an ending of WW1 not like that is really really unlikely, but without the near perfect set-up for WW2 of OTL it would take longer for things come to a head again. Decades longer even, especially for this TL, at which point technology has marched on and that WW2 would look more like 'Cold War gone hot'.

Now if people actually wrote that then I would be interested, but I am rather tired of punchclock WW2 twenty years later no matter what.

Germany was hardly "taking on" Britain, France and most of Russia on it's own. Germany's successes in the first part of the war were very much an optical illusion of space on a map not backed by enough.