1918 Central Powers Victory: Effects On Britain

[Novosibrisk]

[FONT=&quot]Ok, this is probably ground which has been covered before (especially by people who've been on the pre 1900 forum recently) but here goes...

Say the Germans were able to pull the cat out of the bag and win WW1 in 1918. Possibly because of a French collapse due to a different spring offensive (we'll probably need to get rid of US involvement too). I'll leave out details for now.

What would be the effects on British society and culture in the 20's and 30's?

I doubt Germany would be getting much at the peace table, maybe not even a return of the colonies as long as the RN rules the seas, though it would dominate continental Europe. However, this would be the first major war the UK had lost since the American Revolution and even the OTL victory resulted in instability and economic hard times.

Would Britain be driven to revenge? Would we see a return of splendid isolation? Would something completely different happen?

What do you think?

(sorry about the font size, can't seem to change it)
[/FONT]

 

[Campbell1004]

Well Oswald Mosley and his Fascist might see some more power being pushed their way if they promise, "to restore Britannia to greatness again." And if things become even worst during the Great Depression I could see Mosley and his men definitely coming to power.

Seeing the mother country fail so close to home may be perceived as a sign of weakness towards unruly colonies. India might strike out in rebellion.

The British would still control the oceans though, they might partake in extensive global trade to expand their revenue.

 

[Novosibrisk]

thanks for the reply Campbell.

I like your idea but with this POD Mosley the facist may well be butterflied away, though he may come to power in a more militant Labour government (ala A Greater Britain).

I also like the idea of rebellion in India, i think the empire would almost certainly see widespread discontent.

 

[Faeelin]

I wonder... if America isn't involved in WW1, would it be less isolationist postwar? If confronted with a belligerent and assertive Germany on the global stage...

 

[Campbell1004]

I wonder... if America isn't involved in WW1, would it be less isolationist postwar? If confronted with a belligerent and assertive Germany on the global stage...

Almost like a pre-nuclear cold war?

 

[Kneze]

We could see the Brits get more friendly with Japan seeing as Germany and Russia were the main reason for the Anglo-Japanese alliance in the first place, and now Germany is bigger and Russia is redder.

 

[Novosibrisk]

I wonder... if America isn't involved in WW1, would it be less isolationist postwar? If confronted with a belligerent and assertive Germany on the global stage...

I'm having trouble thinking of what Germany and the US would confront each other over, Germany had staked her claim in europe and been stripped of her colonies. Unless Germany goes on a colonial adventure in the americas or their interests collide head on in China.

I think Germany would have its hands full in europe for the time being, trying to keep the Social Democrats from real power (especially after a war costing millions of live which wouldn't have bought many tangible benefits to the people), and perhaps some kind of war/insurgency in Russia (i doubt that they'd want to keep Lenin in power).

 

[Scott_B]

The devil is really in the detail here.

If the Germans win as a result of an early French collapse, the British had only a small force in France, easily evacuated and even if it isn't the loss of the BEF would not be a crippling blow. I would imagine at best the Germans would offer a ceasefire, they simply lack the ability to inflict an actual outright defeat on Britain at this stage.

So assuming that, does it have a huge negative impact on the UK? Maybe not, in actuality it has lost much fewer men and spent a lot less money, indeed it may all be viewed as a defeat of France primarily anyway. Though it does now face a very large and very strong Germany. Though this Germany would be preoccupied dealing with its new Eastern European empire, whatever Russia becomes and the collapse of the Austro Hungarian Empire at some stage. Giving Britain and particularly a no doubt vengeful France plenty time to build up their strength for the inevitable round 2.

Worth noting a quick end to WW1 limits technological development; tanks are never used, aeroplanes aren't developed to the same levels etc.

 

[lothaw]

To be honest, a successful Spring Offensive would probably see Brest-Livorisk ratified, but other than that, be pretty status quo.

Italy and Austria would probably have to settle for pre-war borders, though Austria would at least get Serbia. Italy wasn't "beaten" per se, so they probably wouldn't have to pay repirations, though they might have to give up Rhodes and the Dodencese Islands to the Ottomans. Mussolini's bound to take power still.

Even with "victory" it's questionable if A-H can hold it together, especially when the Depression hits.

Belgium seems destined to be a puppet, though the Congo might be traded to Germany for independence again.

I doubt Japan's going to give back what it grabbed, and Germany's in no shape to make them.

The Ottomans probably have to settle for mostly status quo. Maybe they'd be able to strongarm the Cacuses from Russia with German help, but by 1918, status quo is pretty damn good for them. I doubt Britain's going to insist upon trying to hold the place when Germany's now freed up to lend a hand.

France is an interesting scenario. Alsace-Lorraine is completely gone for sure, and they'd probably be stuck paying repirations to Germany. Their colonial empire would be interesting. Japan may well grab Indochina, sending France some money to salve their pride. I could see Moroccoo and Albania being sold off to Spain and Italy respectively, as mass inflation will be hitting the country. Of course Germany might insist on claiming some of French West Africa, especially if Britain doesn't return Germany's African colonies. Needless to say the communists and right-wing extremists are going to have very receptive audiences.

Britain's in an interesting category. They weren't beaten so much as all their allies were knocked out of the war. The only debate really is are they going to give up the Ottoman lands they hold(Germany probably would bail out their ally, and is Britain really interested in continuing the war alone?), and the German colonies they siezed. I'd guess no, for national pride alone more than anything else. It'd give British politicians something to point at to say they won something from the war. As Germany is likely to be laying claim to some French colonies in Africa, they're likely to consider the matter a push. Britain wouldn't be as well off as it was OTL, though still well off, especially compared to the rest of Europe. Mosley's group probably has a larger following, enough to make him a factor in British politics, but I don't see things getting bad enough for his group to sieze power, even during the height of the Depression.

Still, things are going to be far from stable in Europe. Austria's likely to collapse still and certainly there's going to be a large upheaval after that, certainly with a lot of ethnic groups and countries willing to sweep in and pick up the pieces. France and Russia are the big losers. The Communists were in power in Russia, and possibly an extremist group could sieze power in France, though I'll admit I don't know enough about the characters of the time period to accurately say who/how.

If there's a second great war, it's likely to be a complicated mess.

 

[antisocrates]

Devil really is in the details. The crucial detail in any discussion of CP victory where Britain still stands is whether or not the US is Germanophobic and whether it remains so. A simple continental victory will do absolutely jack for Germany, at least for the Junkertum. Simply put, there was no money in Germany at all to exploit any hypthetical territories in the East and/or West. It was completely bankrupt, and given the ravages of war, neither Russia nor France would make any significant contribution to the looming economic collapse post-war.

dd

German war economy was simple, and stupid. It was basically a system of IOUs where Germany would reinumburse its creditors with reparations from its defeated enemies. Guess what? As Germany proved to the Allied annoyance, nobody had money after WWI, escept the US. So getting reparations to pay for the war was a non-starter, especially since the US (through Britain) was the largest creditor of France, and just stripping France of all wealth for Germany would piss off the US and not work in the medium term anyway. What this all means is that the war would most likely catalyze a peaceful transfer of power from the Wilhelmine elites to the Weimar coalition without the revolution.

dd

At the very least, Germany would be wrecked with political instability, and probably in worse shape than Britain. And it's false to simply assume that there would be insurgency in the East. The Center Party would look at the Poles as the needed electoral counterweight to Protestant north, while SPD had long humanistic tradition that would not tolerate excessive brutality against the Slavs. The position of Ludendorff clique would not look good at all. The bloom of victory would fade quickly when the economy collapses, and his clique would not enjoy any real electoral dividends from victory. And this is where the US comes in. Depending on the US actions and money, it could either shoal up the Ludendorff clique or allow for democritization. Frankly, I do not see Ludendorff with enough finesse to be able to hoodwink the US into throwing him a lifeline. More likely, the economy collapses, the Center and SPD join hand and for the first time, a Red-Black coalition comes to power in Germany.

 

[Novosibrisk]

This scenario gets more 'interesting' (in the Chinese sense) by the second, thanks for the input.

As for American involvement, let’s say unrestricted submarine warfare is declared and continues but the Zimmermann telegram is decoded and revealed to the American public by the British. In a rare flash of good PR the Germans are able to convince the American administration that the telegram is a fake, part of a nefarious British plot to get the Americans involved in the war, thus poisoning UK/US relations. This leaves the US still neutral, both Germanophobic and with a grudge against 'perfidious Albion'. Do you think that would work?

This leaves us a shattered Germany at the heart of Europe, with instability to the south and east, bankrupt and only able to extract reparations from France by force. A mutilated victory if there ever was one. Does anyone know who the primary German creditors were?

Austria-Hungary may well be on the verge of a break up. Any well informed posters have any ideas?

Russia is about to be thrown into a civil war, does anyone think that the coalition government in Germany would have the money or inclination to support the whites?

The Ottoman Empire has been savaged by the war, it may be able to take some territory in the caucuses but the British victories in Palestine and Mesopotamia and the Arab revolt probably undermines their position outside Anatolia, unless they can get a British withdrawal at the peace table or enlist German help, which is doubtful.

Britain herself is on the verge of bankruptcy, and faces discontent in the dominions and perhaps a revolt in India. She’s just fought a war costing the lives of one million young men for a result that could, at best, be described as an unfavourable draw.

Belgium is kaput and France has been forcibly stripped of her great power status, lost more men (proportionally) than anyone else and faces the equally unpalatable options of resignation or psychopathy in government.

Dystopiantastic!

 

[chris N]

It might be that the US might not enter the war for a variety of reasons. A German victory in the west could mean big problems for the British. Remember this is World War I and the British/ Commonwealth Forces in France would have been much larger than in WWII. The Germans might have been able to bag a lot of British, Canadian and Australians. This might have resulted in oerhaps the ability to reach a more balanced peace treaty.

The Collapse of France would mean that pressure on the Central Powers in the Balkans would be eased. Italy would find itself in the position of facing the wrath of the Germans and the Austrians. Perhaps they would have to back down on their claims against Austria-Hungary. A German victory might give the Dual Empire time to reorganize itself.

Germany and Austria-Hungary would maintain forces in the east to assure
that food and fuel made its way to the west. Perhaps the Kaiser would still be in power as a victory would have helped to ease pressure on him to leave and Hindenburg would support the Kaiser.

 

[antisocrates]

This scenario gets more 'interesting' (in the Chinese sense) by the second, thanks for the input.
This leaves us a shattered Germany at the heart of Europe, with instability to the south and east, bankrupt and only able to extract reparations from France by force. A mutilated victory if there ever was one. Does anyone know who the primary German creditors were?

</p>
It should be fairly obvious; after all, who had money around Germany who wasn't fighting against it? The answer, of course, is no one. Thus it owed money to itself. This is a rather complex issue, and I'm not inclined to write a thesis on it right now, so I'll be very brief. The kaiserreich had taxation system that was American conservatives' dream come true. If an American conservative died and went to tax heaven, it would be the kaiserreich. It had ridiculously low income tax rate, so most of the budget had to come from consumption tax. And for poltiical reasons (both the Junkers and the big business opposed any changes), this stayed the same during the war, severely handicapping the government's ability to raise money. Thus the government resorted to IOUs to pay for the war.

 

[Frige]

Well Oswald Mosley and his Fascist might see some more power being pushed their way if they promise, "to restore Britannia to greatness again." And if things become even worst during the Great Depression I could see Mosley and his men definitely coming to power.

Seeing the mother country fail so close to home may be perceived as a sign of weakness towards unruly colonies. India might strike out in rebellion.

The British would still control the oceans though, they might partake in extensive global trade to expand their revenue.

Mosley wasn't a fascist in 1918. Mosley copied a lot of his ideas, and all the aesthetic, from the successful continental movements- you need them to get a similar group started.

 

[Thucydides]

I wonder that if Japan and Britain drift closer then will Japan still be acting belligerently throughout the Pacific? Because if they do America might be either an interesting third party in a war that has to happen eventually or maybe even an ally of Germany if Britain does not curtail the Japanese's ambitions for the American and still German controlled Islands.

Very interesting scenario but I think that Britain would be much less likely to form a fascist party without a major naval defeat or an (as we all know) impossible invasion of the home islands.

 

[chris N]

The capture of a large amount of the BEF might cause problems for the government. Whether it would eventually lead to a Facsist Government I have some doubts. The Liberal Party government would collapse no doubt and David Lloyd George would fall from power.

If Britain renewed its alliance with Japan, possibility in view of the defeat in WWI then it might find itself coming into conflict with the US.

 

[Novosibrisk]

Delicious replies! I must post.

It might be that the US might not enter the war for a variety of reasons. A German victory in the west could mean big problems for the British. Remember this is World War I and the British/ Commonwealth Forces in France would have been much larger than in WWII. The Germans might have been able to bag a lot of British, Canadian and Australians. This might have resulted in oerhaps the ability to reach a more balanced peace treaty.

Thats what i'm counting on to bring the British to the table, Chris. The spring offensive is aimed at the French, who collapse caporetto style and BEF is left in an untenable position in a retreat to the channel ports.

</p>
It should be fairly obvious; after all, who had money around Germany who wasn't fighting against it? The answer, of course, is no one. Thus it owed money to itself. This is a rather complex issue, and I'm not inclined to write a thesis on it right now, so I'll be very brief. The kaiserreich had taxation system that was American conservatives' dream come true. If an American conservative died and went to tax heaven, it would be the kaiserreich. It had ridiculously low income tax rate, so most of the budget had to come from consumption tax. And for poltiical reasons (both the Junkers and the big business opposed any changes), this stayed the same during the war, severely handicapping the government's ability to raise money. Thus the government resorted to IOUs to pay for the war.

Thanks for the information Antisocrates. How do you think the Germans would have found the money to pay? Seizure of French and Belgian commodities and gold reserves as repartions? (that would piss the US off almightily but i doubt they'd send an army over the atlantic over it).

Mosley wasn't a fascist in 1918. Mosley copied a lot of his ideas, and all the aesthetic, from the successful continental movements- you need them to get a similar group started.

Fridge, i doubt Britain is turning Fascist any time soon, according to Orwell the Fascist apeing of continental styles was one of the primary reasons why they couldn't gain power, the 20's will probably be domminated by imperial tories. If the depression hits on cue we may see the rise of a non-pacifist labour party, perhaps with Mosley at its head (or not, Mosley wasn't the sharpest hammer in the box.)

I wonder that if Japan and Britain drift closer then will Japan still be acting belligerently throughout the Pacific? Because if they do America might be either an interesting third party in a war that has to happen eventually or maybe even an ally of Germany if Britain does not curtail the Japanese's ambitions for the American and still German controlled Islands.

Checkmate, the Japanese may be satiated by the 'purchase' of French Indochina and i doubt the Germans are getting their islands or Chinese concessions back, another 'purchase' might be arranged to save face, however continued Japanese belligerence would be likley to force the UK to choose between Japan and the US, as it did in the OTL 20's.

 

[Novosibrisk]

The capture of a large amount of the BEF might cause problems for the government. Whether it would eventually lead to a Facsist Government I have some doubts. The Liberal Party government would collapse no doubt and David Lloyd George would fall from power.

If Britain renewed its alliance with Japan, possibility in view of the defeat in WWI then it might find itself coming into conflict with the US.

I expect Lloyd George and the Liberal party would be scapegoated out of existance, perhaps along with some of the leaders of the army and navy. Tory 20's?

If Britain is forced to chose between the US and Japan there can only be one winner. But if Japan manages to make territorial gains at the expense of the Germans and French their militarism and expansionism could be butterflied somewhat.

 

[jotheberlock]

Britain's in an interesting category. They weren't beaten so much as all their allies were knocked out of the war. The only debate really is are they going to give up the Ottoman lands they hold(Germany probably would bail out their ally, and is Britain really interested in continuing the war alone?), and the German colonies they siezed. I'd guess no, for national pride alone more than anything else. It'd give British politicians something to point at to say they won something from the war. As Germany is likely to be laying claim to some French colonies in Africa, they're likely to consider the matter a push. Britain wouldn't be as well off as it was OTL, though still well off, especially compared to the rest of Europe.

Firstly, it's quite possible Britain does continue to fight on, if German continental hegemony seems a big enough threat. It did against Napoleon after all.

Secondly, if Britain does not fight on, it may actually be better off financially than OTL - fighting wars is expensive and Britain was fairly deeply in hock to America to fund the OTL World War I. A Britain that's knocked out early is one with fewer debts and one that can hold onto its South American markets which in OTL it started to lose to Americans. Much depends, of course, on what exactly Germany wants from the rest of Europe after winning. A greater Zollverein or some other kind of continental trade bloc seems vaguely possible down the road which could deprive Britain of much of its markets.

 

[Nitzkrieg]

Actually I think that the UK might end out with Japan instead of the US this time around. Japan made more significant gains in TTL at the expense of France, making it more self-sufficient. America, on the other hand, refused to help Britain here, which fosters resentment between the two. It might look like a matricidal move to the Brits.

I don't see the UK turning fascist at all. I see them more becoming a grudging empire. It's like after a really bad round of RISK, when you restock and take a look at the situation again you aren't so bad off- but still losing. I see them spending their next few turns in resupply, building up alliances in the Pacific, and bringing France under her wing. Basically, WWII might end up a 2nd Reich versus Western Europe (Russia being too weakened from the perpetual revolution taking place, instigated and funded by Germany). Bandwagon states (Eastern Europe) would side with Germany. This all depends on how the Depression works, of course. If the US is hit only mildly, we can see a more laissez-faire America coming out of it. It could side with Germany or the UK, and that'd probably decide the war.