1917/8 - Central Powers Victory in WWI and beyond.

The Magyars are a pretty pragmatic lot. They won't break with Austria unless the grass looks distinctly greener elsewhere. Will they really abandon an equal (or even somewhat more than equal) partnership with Austria for one with a vastly expanded Germany which outnumbers them more than four to one in population and even more economically? It would also mean having to pay for a separate Hungarian army, instead of the KuK army which is disproportionally paid for by Austria. If things are in as big an economic mess as they probably are, that may be a serious deterrent.

There may well be a "Northern Ireland Problem" in the Serb districts of Bosnia, but unless you envisage Serbs and Croats acting in unison (<g>) that ought to be manageable. And as already noted, the Czechs and Poles have nowhere to go except into Germany's arms. So what's left?

As for Germany, she certainly won't just shrug her shoulders and let things take their course. She can't afford to given that A/H screens her southern boder. She may intervene to prop it up or to partition it, but intervene she will.
 
Last edited:
There may well be a "Northern Ireland Problem" in the Serb districts of Bosnia, but unless you envisage Serbs and Croats acting in unison (<g>) that ought to be manageable.

Years prior to the WW I showed that Croats and Serbs of Croatia can function in a balanced and peaceful manner as long Belgrade is kept at bay with its expansionistic and unitaristic policies. Also following the creation of Kingdom SHS/Yugoslavia Serbs of Croatia functioned much better with Croats than their Belgrade kin. Also the WW II situation shows that when faced with a common evil Croats and Serbs function suprisingly well together.
 
Sorry, Malice, but I think your TL's implausible, as Devolved wrote, for the reasons he gave. I've already written the same thing in response to an identical POD.

Like he wrote, offense was slow on the Western Front - at least, until the Entente invented tank doctrine. That's because firing rates were high enough that attackers were ALWAYS too thinned out by the time they could get anywhere. It'd been the same in the Civil War, and was like that everywhere defenders had plenty of ammo.

The tank made the difference because it was a practical way, finally, of carrying heavy enough armor to stop bullets well.
 
Top