AHC: Create as much chaos as possible in Europe after WW1

[Zurirach Adankar]

I want to create a timeline, in which the years after "The Great War" where followed by the"European Civil War" or a "Decade of Chaos". Before testing the plausibility of my own ideas, I want to talk about several problems and ideas of the general concept and gain new ideas and important criticism.

Since the years after WW1 where already highly interesting and chaotic in large parts of (mainly Eastern) Europe, I wonder, how it is possible to increase the chaos.
The POD could be between 1890 and 1918. So it is possible to alter WW1 or change several of the conflicts before the Great War. (Balkan Wars)

I define chaos as extreme political instability combined with violence and economic collapse. So this timeline needs a large amount of revolutions, civil wars and separatism for several years. To accomplish this goal, it is necessary to destabilize nearly all Great Powers. But are there realistic circumstances, under which nearly all Great Powers face violent internal conflicts?
So in OTL, the Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary collapsed, and Germany faced a revolution with several violent conflicts in the next years. Now we need to find ways to destabilize Great Britain, France (and maybe the United States, but this is difficult) without improving the situation of the other OTL-collapsing Empires.

But I don't want to forget Secondary Powers or minor countries, since they offer interesting options as well (especially in Eastern Europe). I also want to explore the effects of this "European Civil War" on the other continents and on a different decolonization.
The trauma of several years of industrial warfare followed by severe civil war and the collapse of international trade could maybe prevent an alternate WW2 and lead to world with more smaller powers.

Since this is a large project, I doubt, that I could start the timeline soon. (The idea is since several years in my head)

Main Goal:
After the Great War Revolutions and Civil Wars in nearly every country of Europe for several years.

Avoid:
- The dominance of one ideology
- A second world war

Some Bonus points:
- Chaos in minor countries
- Successful independence movements
- Chaos in the Colonies, and earlier independence movements (easy)
- Also Chaos in Scandinavia and Switzerland.
- Chaos in the United States, (or a second American Civil War) in the decades after WW1. (difficult)
- Prevent Japan from dominating East Asia without uniting Warlord-China. (difficult and contradicting)

One (two) last question(s):
I once saw a map from the MOTF (map contest) about a rebellion or large mutiny on the Western Front. Since it is some months ago, I forgot which person created the map. Are here some people who remember from which MOTF-contest or person this map is? Or could you give me an answer, in which circumstances such a mutiny from soldiers of both sides is possible?

Thank you for your comments. Since these are many different questions, and my AHC-ideas are in some points specific, you don't need to answer anything, feel free to ad your thoughts.

 

[Napoleonrules]

What if a healthier Wilson is able to encourage a stronger belief of ethnic self-determination leading to a break up of Yugoslavia (always a good one for causing chaos)

 

[Tanc49]

Communist revolutions everywhere!

I would say the spartacists are a good start for mayhem and chaos. Good old civil war.

 

[Halagaz]

Something like a very long war ending in an ultra-late unrealized CP victory sounds like a recipe for the most chaos.

Let's say Germany manages to partially overrun France, triggering a French coup/revolution which later develops into a full-blown civil war. (I don't think this is likely, but it could happen.) But the victory is not complete and Germany is unable to disentangle from the war: France is still in the game, even if it's barely hanging on; Britain and the USA are still there; and Germany has launched another expedition. Maybe it invades Russia in order to overthrow the Bolsheviks - that one almost happened in OTL. Or maybe it moves to put down uprisings in A-H, or to help out the Ottomans, or whatever. At this point a big part of the German people, tired of the hardships of war, decide they've had enough and revolt; and the Kaiserreich implodes into its own civil war.

So Germany and France are in chaos.
Britain isn't, but that would be a bit too ambitious.
Russia has its own civil war. It could become longer and more chaotic, but it doesn't need to be - OTL's version was bad enough.
A-H breaks down, left without its big brother and unable to withstand the pressure of the uprisings and political cleavages. The whole region transitions into a bloody free-for-all between the nations; with plenty of partisan warfare, random peasant republics and socialist micro-revolts, and so on.
The same happens with all of Mitteleuropa, only the chaos is even bigger and more intense. Every single regime the CP installed was either:
1) incredibly unpopular (ie. a social and political bloodbath waiting to happen);
2) an ethnic bloodbath waiting to happen (or not even waiting);
3) both of the above;
4) Finland.
Without Germany around to prop them up, they have no chance. So, yet more revolutions, uprisings, coups, civil wars and regular wars - a continuous mess pretty much everywhere within the Estonia-Azerbaijan-Greece triangle. And with no Entente nor any other power block around to enforce ceasefires, compromises and arbitrations any time soon.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

The Red Army wins the Battle of Warsaw and just keeps rolling west.

 

[AnywhereButOTL]

The Red Army wins the Battle of Warsaw and just keeps rolling west.

That's a good one. You'd have an expansionist Bolshevik state right on Weimar Germany's eastern border, communist revolution bubbling up all across Europe, maybe another major outbreak of some sort of infectious disease (a la the Spanish flu) to spice things up. The '20s in that world wouldn't be much fun for the poor Europeans.

 

[DrakonFin]

Every single regime the CP installed was either:
1) incredibly unpopular (ie. a social and political bloodbath waiting to happen);
2) an ethnic bloodbath waiting to happen (or not even waiting);
3) both of the above;
4) Finland.
Without Germany around to prop them up, they have no chance. So, yet more revolutions, uprisings, coups, civil wars and regular wars - a continuous mess pretty much everywhere within the Estonia-Azerbaijan-Greece triangle. And with no Entente nor any other power block around to enforce ceasefires, compromises and arbitrations any time soon.

Even if it is nice of you to list Finland separately, I'd still point out that the Finnish government after the Civil War was not a German-installed one, but one created domestically and "organically" that became German-aligned during the Civil War. The Finnish Whites would have won the war against the Reds without German support, even, (ceteris paribus) but the German intervention helped them and probably shortened the war for weeks if not months, potentially saving thousands of lives.

In general, though, I mostly agree with you about the German role in the east. Comparatively, the German part played in the Finnish process of gaining independence was a lot different to, say, the Baltic experience. In the Baltic states, the Germans fought against the local nationalists, not for them. Here up north, the bourgeous nationalists and ordinary non-Socialist Finns saw the German influence in the Civil War and after it predominately only in positive terms. Come 20s and 30s, this also informed the Finnish views about Germany and working with the Germans, say in building the Finnish military where German(-trained) officers played an important. It also paved way for WWII era cooperation.

As for your idea about continuing war in the East after a German revolution - I believe that things would settle down by the mid-to-late 20s. No area can withstand and keep up continuous war, people need to be fed and a peace of sorts, a measure of stability and normality (some form of normality) would have arrived sooner or later due to exhaustion. What kind of system of states of nations would have resulted from it is whole another question.

 

[Halagaz]

Even if it is nice of you to list Finland separately, I'd still point out that the Finnish government after the Civil War was not a German-installed one, but one created domestically and "organically" that became German-aligned during the Civil War. The Finnish Whites would have won the war against the Reds without German support, even, (ceteris paribus) but the German intervention helped them and probably shortened the war for weeks if not months, potentially saving thousands of lives.

I suppose it would be more accurate to say "the CP sphere in the East" instead of "installed regimes"; if only because of Finland. In any case, the point was the extremely unstable and volatile nature of all but one of them.

Still, I'm pretty sure that the creation a Finnish Kingdom was strongly influenced by Germany's temporary dominant position in Europe. Was monarchy really the first choice of Finnish society? I'd imagine people would want to try something different after the Romanov experience. And even if monarchy was an "organic" development, I doubt Friedrich of Hesse was the "organic" choice for monarch. The lords of Hesse were intriguing to seize a foreign throne - any throne, they tried to take Romania too - so I suspect Finland had to more or less settle for him, rather than choose him with any genuine desire.

 

[Tanc49]

Oh, got another one!

Lyautey was a very popular French general who had participated heavily in the colonisation process under the orders of Gallieni. He even had a stint at the War Ministry during WWI but didn't work out.

He was very popular and very connected but in 1924, he was relieved from his command in Morocco to be replaced by Pétain to finish off the Rif War in Morocco.
Lyautey couldn't stand Pétain and didn't appreciate that at all. Now what if he tried a coup then and there? Imagine a French replay of Franco's civil war, complete with African troups. He could even get massive support from the colonies since he was very pro-indigenous.

French civil war with the Metropole torn apart by colonial troups and the army, lots of fun for the families!

 

[DrakonFin]

I suppose it would be more accurate to say "the CP sphere in the East" instead of "installed regimes"; if only because of Finland. In any case, the point was the extremely unstable and volatile nature of all but one of them.

Still, I'm pretty sure that the creation a Finnish Kingdom was strongly influenced by Germany's temporary dominant position in Europe. Was monarchy really the first choice of Finnish society? I'd imagine people would want to try something different after the Romanov experience. And even if monarchy was an "organic" development, I doubt Friedrich of Hesse was the "organic" choice for monarch. The lords of Hesse were intriguing to seize a foreign throne - any throne, they tried to take Romania too - so I suspect Finland had to more or less settle for him, rather than choose him with any genuine desire.

The independent Finnish state was born as a republic in December 1917. Only during the Civil War a part of the leading conservatives started supporting a project for a monarchy, preferably with a German royal as a king. They saw German power as a way to guarantee that Finnish secession from Russian power would become reality - the idea, for the Finnish monarchists, was to tie Finland to Germany through the king in hopes of support. The Germans did not impose the idea of electing Friedrich of Hesse as the king of Finland, but the Finnish royalists invited him on their own accord. He wasn't even their first choice, but something of a compromise result. Germany of course supported the project quite strongly, but AFAIK the German military support to Finland was in no way tied to the royal project. The Germans did support and would have supported a republican White government as well, as long as it was pro-German and ready to work for common (that is, German) goals. At the time the Finnish right and centre, the major "bourgeois" groups supporting the Whites, were generally rather pro-German, across the republican/pro-monarchy divide.

So - while Finnish independence was an "organic" idea that was supported by all major political groups, the kingdom was eminently a minority project, conceived after Finland had declared independence and also received (Soviet) Russian recognition for it. It mostly happened after the Civil War as well. The White forces fought for the Svinhufvud Senate as the Finnish government (and Mannerheim as its White General), not for a German king. The monarchists just happened to be a temporarily powerful pro-German minority with influence over a lot of men with guns in the aftermath of the war. In the end, the royal project was torpedoed by both the German defeat in the wider war and the domestic opposition to monarchy, even from the winning White side - namely, the staunchly republican Agrarians and the Liberals.

 

[Augenis]

The Red Army wins the Battle of Warsaw and just keeps rolling west.

The Red Army itself wouldn't roll far. By this point, Russia had embroiled in six years of continuous war, almost all of it within it's own territory, so support for any more war was monstrously low. This was one of the main reasons for the Peace of Brest-Litovsk two years before, despite the large territorial loss included in it. Wrangel was still active in 1920, the Tambov Rebellion was about to happen, and the Povolzhye famine was only a year away, and Kronstadt - if the Soviets add a war with the Entente into this, too, then they won't last long, even if they are winning.

However, if Lenin and Trotsky decide to be conservative in his conquest and not as delusional as he claimed in their speeches - for example, attacking Weimar Germany to support the remnants of the Spartacists and not going further - then such a Communist incursion into Europe would have massive implications, large enough to fit the challenge in the OP, I think.

 

[Halagaz]

The Germans did not impose the idea of electing Friedrich of Hesse as the king of Finland, but the Finnish royalists invited him on their own accord. He wasn't even their first choice, but something of a compromise result. Germany of course supported the project quite strongly, but AFAIK the German military support to Finland was in no way tied to the royal project. The Germans did support and would have supported a republican White government as well, as long as it was pro-German and ready to work for common (that is, German) goals. At the time the Finnish right and centre, the major "bourgeois" groups supporting the Whites, were generally rather pro-German, across the republican/pro-monarchy divide.

Fair enough, but I believe this doesn't contradict my understanding: that while the Finnish state was an organic development, the establishment of a monarchy was very much a product of contemporary CP hegemony (and the fall of that hegemony was bound to end the short-lived monarchy as well).

I also remember reading (Fritz Fischer) that Germany's position at the time was the factor that made monarchists both willing to fight for their beliefs in the political arena and able to outmaneuver the republicans. The general idea being that a monarchy will secure the tolerance and greater support of monarchic Germany, while a "bourgeois" democratic republic would have meant an implicit alignment with the Entente. I don't know how much this corresponds to the reality of Finland's 1918 politics - only to some extent, apparently.

 

[DrakonFin]

Fair enough, but I believe this doesn't contradict my understanding: that while the Finnish state was an organic development, the establishment of a monarchy was very much a product of contemporary CP hegemony (and the fall of that hegemony was bound to end the short-lived monarchy as well).

This depends on how you see "contemporary CP hegemony" and how much you are ready to allow agency for lesser actors like the Finnish government and Finnish "bourgeois" politicians. I'd say that the monarchy project in Finland was partly a product of the CP's strong position at the time, but it did have also other causes, mostly domestic. The shock caused to the Finnish body politic by the Civil War was very much a factor, as was the fact that for the Whites, the war was seen as first and foremost a War of Liberty - liberty from Russian hegemony. As I like to see it, in 1917-1919, the Finns did not really grasp the concept of "independence" yet: having escaped from the clutches of Petrograd, they were ready to throw themselves to the arms of Germany for help and support, pretty much unconditionally. The Kubrick quote of great nations acting like gangsters and small nations like prostitutes comes to mind. To small nations, there always seems to be just a limited range of options - when you are trying to get away from a major power next door, having a strong protector is often seen as a necessary thing to have. In 1917-1918, Germany had a lot more reach in the Baltic Sea area than the Entente did, anyway.

For Finland, a parallel between 1917-1918 and 1940-1941 is of course obvious here.

I also remember reading (Fritz Fischer) that Germany's position at the time was the factor that made monarchists both willing to fight for their beliefs in the political arena and able to outmaneuver the republicans. The general idea being that a monarchy will secure the tolerance and greater support of monarchic Germany, while a "bourgeois" democratic republic would have meant an implicit alignment with the Entente. I don't know how much this corresponds to the reality of Finland's 1918 politics - only to some extent, apparently.

Only to some extent. The Finnish monarchists were pushing the project for two reasons. One, like I said, was that it would bring more German support. Two, they thought that a strong leader was needed to stop something like a civil war from happening again, to prevent the revolutionary left from rising again. Monarchy, especially the monarch itself, would have been "the strong core" of the newly created "White" Finnish state, able to uphold stability and the rule of law (like the conservatives saw it). So, German support from the outside, strong leadership in the inside - the Finnish monarchist conservatives' recipe for a new Finland free of Russian power and Communist subversion. AFAIK there were no real anti-Entente feelings in Finland at the time, rather vice versa as some of the leading figures, Mannerheim foremost, were also rather pro-Entente.

But then, it was not about the Great War, it was about the fate of Finland.

 

[Magyarország]

You could have even more chaos in the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy than iOTL by turning the Ethnic violence up to 11 by weakening everyone involved.

• Weaker Roumania. Maybe the war was more destructive for them and they are less in a position to invade Transylvania, extending the Hungarian-Roumanian War significantly.
• Maybe make sure the Czechoslovak legion is stuck in Russia for longer, keeping them away from the newborn Czechoslovakia.
• Speaking of which, make the idea of a Czech-Slovak state weaker by empowering Slovak nationalists somehow. Czechoslovakia can become a huge mess by involving the Germans in the Sudetes and the Hungarians in Slovakia. Could involve Hungary, Austria and Germany in this clusterfuck.
• Yugoslavia: Destroy the idea of a united south-Slavic state by making the Croats and Slovenes less interested. Making Serbia more blatant about their Greater Serbian ambitions, maybe? Conflict over the future of Bosnia? Bosnia is a perfect candidate for more bloodshed: Serbia and Croatia fighting over it while Bosniaks, all with seasoned veterans (esp. the Bosniak regiments), trying to keep the thing from being partitioned.
  
• Italy: I don't know a lot of details of Italian history in that era, but I do know that they really, really wanted Istria and Dalmation, putting them into conflict with the Slovenes and Croats. Plus, Italy hardly seemed stable at the time; some kind of civil war could happen I'm sure.
  
• Austria: Pan-German unionists, Independentists, Italians and Slovenes could all be fighting over it.
• Conflict between Poland and the Ukraine is very much OTL. It could be bloodier if nobody's trying to broker a peace between them and the Bolsheviks aren't able to threaten them. Poles could be fighting Lithuanian and Byelorusian nationalists over Vilnius and Minsk as per OTL. The Ukraine was already pretty chaotic iOTL; maybe weaken the Hetmanate, make sure the Anarchists survive longer? Hell, maybe it'd be possible to make Wilhelm of Austria a bigger player if he leads the Sich Riflemen.
  
• Speaking of the Bolsheviks, extending the Russian Civil War is a must, but how could the Reds be weak enough to be unable to destroy the Whites without being ASB or empowering the Whites too much. Dividing the Whites even further is easy enough, but is it as easy for the Reds? Hopefully somebody with better knowledge of the Civil War can give better ideas. Empowering the local Green militias, maybe? Kerensky is able to forge his own faction of SRs and Kadets inbetween Reds and Whites?
• A three-way war between Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia over Macedonia could be interesting. Hell, maybe throw in some early Macedonian nationalists in there. Or Albania. It was already very chaotic iOTL and Serbia, Greece and Italy all have interests there.

Just throwing ideas out there and itxs not even including the obvious Radical Leftist revolutionaries that can be applied in pretty much every state i Europe. The biggest challenge here is definitely the UK and the USA. Maybe empower socialist movements there? A longer war could lead to increased instability and a hotbed for revolutionary fervour. Still, it'll take a long to plunge the USA into chaos. A second US Civil War is very much cliché, but definitely an obvious candidate for worldwide chaos.

 

[NoMommsen]

Hmm, noone has tried to bring the 'age of chaos' to the Anglo-Saxon powers yet. Let me give it a shot at least at Britain :

What about the delivery of weapons to Ireland in 1916 by Germany, which failed OTL would have been successful (as an identifyable PoD)?
I doubt it had changed the outcome of the Easter Rising but could have prolonged it and made it a lot messier, what could have led to a kind of constant 'civil war' similar to North-Ireland of modern times together with terroristic actions on Britain mainland, some assasinations(attempted), some bombs at Victoria Station, etc..
Something like this - Irish terror in England proper - might also happen after OTL end of WW I (?). Then maybe from some point on backed by communist support.

Btw : how 'strong' was scottish nationalism at that time ?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Very large volcanic eruption leads to 1919 being another "Year Without Summer". With most of Europe already brought to the brink of starvation by the Royal Navy's blockade as well as the large number of deaths due to the Spanish Flu the desperate people are willing to do just about anything to stay alive. Law and order breaks down as gangs of armed ex soldiers fight to get and keep to themselves any supplies they can find and the continent becomes a patchwork of warlord controlled territories with little resemblance to the official country borders

 

[Zurirach Adankar]

Your contributions are Great!
I’m unsure about my POD and its time. Either using an early POD with many side effects before the Great War or using a late POD at the beginning or during WW1 seems possible.

Longer WW1 and short time German domination of Eastern Europe.

Something like a very long war ending in an ultra-late unrealized CP victory sounds like a recipe for the most chaos.

It is in my eyes correct that a longer and undecided or slightly Central Powers positive war could lead to the scenario. But we can’t expand the great war indefinitely. Germany and Austria-Hungary are in a bad condition (hunger) caused by the economic blockade. But even several months more war could increase the instability in many countries significantly. One example could be the Netherlands, since their stability decreased over the course of the war (caused by trade problems), even if there was only one unsuccessful call for revolution in OTL.
So I think that it is possible to extend the war for maybe one or half a year but not much longer. All wars come to an end, and also my planned “Decade of Chaos” would slowly end after several years, with the result of a largely different Europe.

Spartakists and Bolsheviks

Communist revolutions everywhere!

Directly after the Great War, it is possible to create communist revolts or revolutions as in OTL in Russia, Hungary, Finland, Bavaria, Berlin, the Rhineland and Italy. It is possible to expand this with some changes in Austria or in the Netherlands. If we drastically decrease the economic situation of Europe, other countries could follow. Several successful uprisings could inspire or convince other communist parties to start their revolutions. But a Communist Revolution often leads to attempts for Counter-Revolution or to Civil War.
Chances for successful communist revolutions and the establishment of several communist countries are not good, but the years after World War 1 have great possibilities for communists.

The Red Army wins the Battle of Warsaw and just keeps rolling west.

I see several interesting options for changes for the Bolsheviks and some possibilities of expansion. The key is the right timing of several uprisings. If there are several uprisings separated by time, it is easy to defeat them. If the uprisings happen in the right order, they could reinforce themselves.

Poland: A Soviet victory is as an POD a classic. It is interesting, and has been discussed before on AH.com
Ukraine-Hungary: I think that this option is more interesting or has more chances for the spread of Communism in Eastern Europe. If the Bolsheviks managed somehow to control the Ukraine earlier than OTL, and if the Hungarian Soviet Republic is established at the right time, the Bolsheviks could support the Hungarians against their enemies (especially Romania). If there is a revolution in Vienna a little bit later,
But I think, that a great expansion of Communism in Eastern Europe would certainly alarm the Entente. So some gains of the Bolsheviks and Communists could be only temporary until a coalition of several superpowers with local fractions defeat them.

Very large volcanic eruption leads to 1919 being another "Year Without Summer". With most of Europe already brought to the brink of starvation by the Royal Navy's blockade as well as the large number of deaths due to the Spanish Flu the desperate people are willing to do just about anything to stay alive. Law and order breaks down as gangs of armed ex soldiers fight to get and keep to themselves any supplies they can find and the continent becomes a patchwork of warlord controlled territories with little resemblance to the official country borders

Continuation of Great Game: Another interesting idea would be, if there is a conflict between Great Britain and the Bolsheviks about Central Asia. I don’t know much about the area so I can’t say much about it.

In general, I don’t want to create a communism-wank. It would be great to have more communist revolutions, but I don’t want to create a large communist super power in the East, or a continuation of the Great War as an “Antibolshevist struggle” between a rapidly expanding but then collapsing Soviet Union against the Great Powers and their allies. A large communist power could unite other fractions. But I don’t want large alliances, I want fragmentation and Balkanization.


A longer Civil War

Speaking of the Bolsheviks, extending the Russian Civil War is a must, but how could the Reds be weak enough to be unable to destroy the Whites without being ASB or empowering the Whites too much. Dividing the Whites even further is easy enough, but is it as easy for the Reds? Hopefully somebody with better knowledge of the Civil War can give better ideas. Empowering the local Green militias, maybe? Kerensky is able to forge his own faction of SRs and Kadets inbetween Reds and Whites?

Is it possible to increase the Civil War by an earlier death of Lenin during the Civil War? Maybe then two fractions could form and fight each other (maybe after a failed coup by someone), which could decrease their success against the Whites. I need to do a lot more of research to find ways of improving the Anti-Bolshevik performance. Intervention of the Great Powers won't work even at the level of OTL, since I want to have them in crisis to. But the intervention of other regional players is of course encouraged in this timeline.


Finland
Your discussion about Finland and its unique situation is really interesting. I should ad that to my plan for my timeline. It seems that a Finish monarchy would be really weak except Germany remains the undisputed Hegemon over Eastern Europe.


Other parts of Eastern Europe and the Ottoman Empire

The same happens with all of Mitteleuropa, only the chaos is even bigger and more intense. Every single regime the CP installed was either:
1) incredibly unpopular (ie. a social and political bloodbath waiting to happen);
2) an ethnic bloodbath waiting to happen (or not even waiting);
3) both of the above;
4) Finland.

I agree with this analysis. It seems really plausible to assume that most of the German puppet governments would fail and replaced by nationalists after internal chaos in Germany.

@Magyarország
Yugoslavia: It would be nice to mess up with the formation of Yugoslavia. So some of your ideas could be used here.
Romania: Romania could try to profit from the Chaos. It seems possible for me, that a longer occupation of Romania could weaken them. After that Romania could try to gain control not only over Transylvania but also over parts of the Ukraine. This could slow their advance down.
Czechoslovakia: Great → Austria, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia could become really chaotic.
Macedonia and Albania: Great, maybe Greece could remain neutral for large parts of WW1 and could try to gain something in the aftermath?
Italy: I prefer the internal conflict. If we increase the Biennio Rosso (with communist factory takeovers especially in Northern Italy) combined with a bad performance of the Army against Austria-Hungary, Italy could come into Civil War.

Poland: Poland could become interesting. Should it try to gain polish territories in the German Empire? Should it try to take Wilna? Should it try to build a large eastern european Alliance or Federation or to create a great polish nation? Which side should Poland support in the Ukraine? There are many different options.
Caucasus: I need to do more research

Now to the difficult parts:

France
It is necessary to destabilize France. But I need to inform myself more about the French government, economy and military. One way would be a larger Central Powers victory, but this could strengthen the Central Powers to much. Another way would be to create problems between the Government and the military leadership to create a Coup followed by a civil war. Another way would be to create a large mutiny by dissatisfied soldiers which could develop into a civil war.

Lyautey was a very popular French general

Thank you for mentioning Hubert Lyautey.

Great-Britain and the Empire
It seems difficult to create enough chaos in Great-Britain. But if we have uprisings in Egypt (there was a revolution in Egypt in 1919) and in India (I don’t know much about India) combined with a continuation of the war in Africa (and a larger Boer uprising), combined with the conflict in Ireland it could maybe seriously weaken the Empire. How many conflicts could the Empire endure? Would the Dominions still support Great-Britain in sending expeditions to many different countries around the world?
If all the conflicts in Europe seriously weaken the world economy.

In OTL:

By the mid-1920s, interest on government debt was absorbing 44% of all government expenditure …

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_national_debt#Between_the_wars)
So this could become a great problem. It is maybe really difficult to maintain the Empire if the economic situation deteriorates.

What about the delivery of weapons to Ireland in 1916 by Germany, which failed OTL would have been successful (as an identifyable PoD)?

More Weapons in Ireland seems to be a good idea.


Destabilize the United States

Still, it'll take a long to plunge the USA into chaos.

If Britain and France borrowed to much money from the United States, and if they are unable to pay it back, it could maybe destabilize the financial systems of the United States. (I don’t know enough about the financial system of the United States, so I’m uncertain on this). If the British and France economy collapses because of their instability, it could maybe weaken the economy of the United States as well. Could this lead to some sort of crisis in the United States?
There was recession in the USA after World War 1 in OTL. If somehow a government failed to react to this, it could maybe increase problems. Maybe larger tariffs are a good idea to destroy world trade.
Canada would be maybe also affected by the world wide crisis, this could lead to recession there as well.

I think that my timeline would work better without an US participation in the Great War, but with a large trade of war goods and large debts borrowed from the US by the Entente. (So maybe a smaller naval build up of the German Empire before the war, maybe because of a stronger Social Democratic Party?)

Very large volcanic eruption leads to 1919 being another "Year Without Summer". With most of Europe already brought to the brink of starvation by the Royal Navy's blockade as well as the large number of deaths due to the Spanish Flu the desperate people are willing to do just about anything to stay alive. Law and order breaks down as gangs of armed ex soldiers fight to get and keep to themselves any supplies they can find and the continent becomes a patchwork of warlord controlled territories with little resemblance to the official country borders

Nice idea, but is there actually a volcano you have in mind? I don't know much about geology, but I never heard something about an "European Yellowstone" or could a non European super volcano produce enough smoke and ash to cool Europe enough? The result of your scenario seems to resemble my first ideas of total European Balkanization. It would be great to write an ASB-scenario with your volcano. But I want to try to find a "non-geological way" here. I definitely need to think about this timeline to.

Note: If I say good here or say that something is a great idea, I mean that it is great for my planned timeline or interesting. These statements are not my political opinion.

 

[Ratmancampidori]

Have Leon Trotsky become leader of the Soviet Union and spend massive amounts of resources to export Communism to other countries. During the Great Depression multiple countries either fall to communism or fascism(As a reaction of course) this eventually leads to war heading in to the 1940's with countries turning on eachother.

 

[DrakonFin]

Finland
Your discussion about Finland and its unique situation is really interesting. I should ad that to my plan for my timeline. It seems that a Finish monarchy would be really weak except Germany remains the undisputed Hegemon over Eastern Europe.

One way to create maximum disruption in Finland might be to avoid the civil war in 1918 altogether, and then have the Germans win the greater war like Halagaz outlines in #4. Enter the monarchists, raise a German king on the Finnish throne with German support. Have the king then prove out as inept, haughty and divisive, even alienating some of the more ardent monarchists by 1923 or so. Later, when the German system in the east starts to unravel, now start a civil war in Finland. The left is uncowed, the right divided, the king hated and the Germans unable to intervene. With some revolutionary Russian support for the Red side in Finland, we could see a truly extended and bloody civil war that could leave Finland crippled for a long time.

Not a nice thing to think about, but this would conceivably fulfill the requirements of the OP as well, for Finland.

For bonus points, let the civil war in Finland spill west and to create instability for Sweden as well. Maybe even a Swedish civil war in the 20s.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Destabilize the United States

If Britain and France borrowed to much money from the United States, and if they are unable to pay it back, it could maybe destabilize the financial systems of the United States. (I don’t know enough about the financial system of the United States, so I’m uncertain on this). If the British and France economy collapses because of their instability, it could maybe weaken the economy of the United States as well. Could this lead to some sort of crisis in the United States?
There was recession in the USA after World War 1 in OTL. If somehow a government failed to react to this, it could maybe increase problems. Maybe larger tariffs are a good idea to destroy world trade.
Canada would be maybe also affected by the world wide crisis, this could lead to recession there as well.

I think that my timeline would work better without an US participation in the Great War, but with a large trade of war goods and large debts borrowed from the US by the Entente. (So maybe a smaller naval build up of the German Empire before the war, maybe because of a stronger Social Democratic Party?)

If you keep the US out, then you don't get any problems from defaults. Until the US entered the war, and for the time it took to show the US how desperate the Entente was during the war, the US only issued secured loans (about 2 Billion, compared to roughly 8 billion unsecured after it entered the war). That meant that if the loans were defaulted on then the US would seize the collateral to cover the loss of the loan. Now there were unsecured loans made by people in the US before US entry, but the Treasury warned against them. You would need someone besides McAdoo running the Treasury, whatever else you can say about the man (and you can say a lot) he was competent. Maybe the House of Morgan, who made unsecured loans OTL keeps doing it longer than they should, and drags the US economy into a crisis, possibly exaggerating by a bombing of their HQ like OTL

Of course the loss of even 10 Billion of loans is less than the 27 Billion the US spent on the War, plus half a billion a year or so on Veterans care

Realistically if the US stays out of the war, the Recession is less bad, it was caused by war spending stopping and war plants closing, there will be fewer plants built and a more gradual reduction over 1917-1919 if the US stays out