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

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
Thanks. My knowledge on debts, war finance and the financial system on the beginning of the 20. century is limited. Therefore I assume, that I exaggerate some economic effects or underestimate several aspects. Maybe I need to find statistical data about the trade connections and budget of the early 20. century USA.
That means, that we need at least a incompetent Secretary of the Treasury. But I also need to find a way to create the economical chaos I want to have. It seems plausible that most governments would demand some securities for their loans.
It seems that we need at the same time an American participation of the war, and a better performance of the Central Powers, which contradicts itself. Maybe a Second American Civil War is cool, but to create it is difficult, especially for a non-american notexpert writer. Another option would be to prefer isolationism or create conflicts with Japan for the United States and leave the idea of exporting chaos to the Americas.

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.
At the moment, I don't know enough about Sweden or Norway to export instability to these countries.

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.
But the result of this scenario would be a WW2 or a Great European War.
 
But the result of this scenario would be a WW2 or a Great European War.

Have Leon become leader of the Soviet Union and fund communist activities throughout Europe. Things like sending guns to the Italian communists and having the Cheka try and convert revolutionary leaders in the colonies to communism.

In Real life the French Communist party was able to win 15 percent in the polls and form a coalition government with other parties. With wholesale support from the Soviet Union this could be increased to the point that France might break down in to Civil War or become communist.

If the communist do gain enough power in France however they'd most likely intervene in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the republicans.

More support given to the communists also increase the chances that with the support of the Soviet's Germany could collapse in to Civil War between the communists and fascists.
 
As for your POD, what about the Morocco Crisis of 1905 leading to a short war.

It wouldn't be called World War One, let's say "The Moroccan War."If Germany is defeated quickly, and Alsace-Lorrane returned to France, Wilhelm II may be itching for a rematch. Hence, they try even more of a buildup and make more of an investment, leading to the breakthrough of the Haber Process a little earlier, with more having been ivnested.

Meanwhile, Teddy Roosevelt was unable to mediate the Moroccan War and in fact a U.S. ship was sunk that caused everyone to want to gear up for war; TR, being rather jingoistic, agrees. Though it's over before US troops get overseas, this leads to a wve of isolationism and William Jennings Bryan becomes the next President in 1908. (There was also OTL, an economic downturn, and something could happen to Taft; who knows, *he* could be on the boat that sinks.)

So, Bryan is serving his first term and will be elected to a 2nd (bonus - no Wilson and Southern Democrats never start to take power with him leading them), because the US is remaining neutral despite the mess in Europe. Germany rattles its sabres more in the 2nd Morocco Crisis when events lead to the Austrian Emperor getting assassinated (a plot existed in 1911); however, there are enoguh plotters that after Germany and Austria go to war against France, Britain, and Russia early in 1912, Franz Ferdinand is also assassinated some years later.

The US can then be stalled because all Bryan wants to focus on is Free Silver, a ship that sailed over a decade ago, though he does appoint some good, liberal Justices. You can decide if TR is elected in 1916 or not; it might be Hughes because he wouldn't be on teh Supreme Court in 1910 TTL.

Okay, sorry, i know you want Europe but as an American and with you not being as much of an expert, as you stated, I thought I'd add that stuff.

Anyway, so you hve a World War One that starts, let's say, around the start of 1912. You can manipulate thigns to have it lasting longer because some sides don't get involved right away, maybe Brusilov or some other good generals for Russia aren't around, etc.. (Or, you *could* manipulate the 2nd Moroccan Crisis to occur a little later, bring the war to August of 1912 it's easier for the Germans to really get a buildup with the slightly earlier Haber process.)

The Southern Democrats, finding themselves ignored somwhat in the party, try to take power at the 1916 Convention, but Bryan backers insist on a Northern man like him. Meanwhile, the REpublicans have their own split; TR didn't try in 1912 brcause Bryan seemed unbeatable and his man had lost in '08 anyway and the GOP goes with the more conservative Knox, but now it's 1916 and TR expects to get the nomination again. So, the GOp also splits and you have a 4-way election that brings chaos and instability.

Whatever else you do, US forces could get sent over to Europe - to a war that is already at exhaustion rates - and take the Spanish Flu with them (it became most pronounced in Spain but I've read it originated in the US). it's even more devastating. Meanwhile, because Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin can go to different places, they decide to spark revolts in Germany and France as well as Russia. The exhaustion is so enormous that pretty much each country is bled white.

Or, an alternative, the US never does get involved (as long as you keep Wilson and his cronies out I don't mind) and the Spanish Flu smply keeps cycling around the US, which maybe is weakened by Mexican rebels and the fighting is in North America. It still reaches Europe and devastates it (because Europe is alrady a mess anyway and OTL it reached China) but it's a touch worse in the US.

Does that sound good for a POD and a lead-up to what you want?
 
Thanks. My knowledge on debts, war finance and the financial system on the beginning of the 20. century is limited. Therefore I assume, that I exaggerate some economic effects or underestimate several aspects. Maybe I need to find statistical data about the trade connections and budget of the early 20. century USA.
That means, that we need at least a incompetent Secretary of the Treasury. But I also need to find a way to create the economical chaos I want to have. It seems plausible that most governments would demand some securities for their loans.
It seems that we need at the same time an American participation of the war, and a better performance of the Central Powers, which contradicts itself. Maybe a Second American Civil War is cool, but to create it is difficult, especially for a non-american notexpert writer. Another option would be to prefer isolationism or create conflicts with Japan for the United States and leave the idea of exporting chaos to the Americas.
Not necessarily an incompetent one, but one a bit too pro Entente could do it. It doesn't necessarily contradict itself. The Germans got pretty close to taking Amiens and Hazebrouk OTL during operation Michael, even with Ludendorff's stupidity. Get someone like Von Falkenhayn in charge and give the CP some extra luck and minor boons in 1916 and 17 to give them more reserves and have the offensives focus on those towns, and with some luck they can fall. If Amiens and Hazebrouk fall, 80% of the Entente supply network is in northern France is gone, the BEF has to make for the coast to stay supplied, the French flanks are wide open and the coal mines feeding the war industry of Paris are in German hands. Essentially France is wrecked, but A-H and the Ottomans are collapsing and the US is still gearing up, and come 1919 the Germans are still going to be booted out and forced to surrender, however you have gutted France, made the US pay 3-5x more in blood, hurt the UK bad, made the post war recession worse, made the Spanish flu worse, and given the US Socialists time to recover

If casualties are high enough, someone is going to get blamed and political strife in the US will be interesting
 
In any of these scenarios the Ottoman Empire is a ticking time bomb; without Britain and France to mediate its collapse (being occupied with their own internal troubles and in trying to restabilize the Continent in Britain's case), it could dissolve into internecine warfare along the lines of Yugoslavia or Austria-Hungary, but with religious divisions thrown into the mix alongside ethnic conflicts. And any of the Muslim factions nearby might want to make a grab for Mecca and Medina...
 
For chaos in the USA I will also suggest the idea of having FDR be successfully assassinated. Garner then takes over and isn't willing to take the important steps needed to pull the United States out of the Great Depression.
 
The USA doesn't entry the war, Russia collapses into civil war in late 1918 Germany bolstered by troops from the east makes a final push which fails but cause even more casualties for the British and French forces. The allies push the German out of Belgium and France but are to stretched to continue into Germany, the French army mutinies again splitting France into those who wish to continue the war and those who wish to pursue peace. Britain has more trouble in Ireland and also problems in India to deal with and as it was the invasion of Belgium that got them into the war when some German state rebel against the rule of Berlin they call it a day and go back to sorting out Irish problem with force.

So in summary Germany has various states try to leave the federation by force, the Austro-Hungarian Empire is tearing it self apart, Russian is in the middle of a 3 way civil war with the Reds the Whites and the blues (monarchists), France is at war with itself of being at war and Britain has jumped in boots first into a Irish bog while trying to wrestle India.

Brave little Belgium is just a rather large field of churned mud and somewhere in Spain or maybe Kansas people are starting to sneeze alot.
 
How do we make the Finish Civil War more miserable?
Have communists fight longer.
Have communists take over the northern provinces of Finnland where most of their supporters (Finnish-speaking, small farmers) originated. The Russian Red Army seriously backs Finnish communists.
Meanwhile, conservative, large land-owners (of Swedish descent) maintain control of the industrialized Southern coast. Germany cannot spare significant numbers of soldiers to back Finnish conservatives. More Swedish volunteers arrive. However, Red advances across the Swedish border force the Seedish Army to mobilize.
They fight to a bloody stand-still in Finnish forests and swamps.

Down in Spain, the Civil War starts earlier, but the League of Nations embargoes foreign arms. Without support from oil companies and fascists (Germany and Italy) Franco never gains a clear advantage. While Russian and French communists try to support Spanish anti-fascists, only a trickle of arms cross the Pyrennes and only in Basque-speaking regions. Basques declare their independence from Spain and quietly re-gain control of Basque-speaking Provinces in Southern France.
 
Does that sound good for a POD and a lead-up to what you want?
Great. Thanks you for your contribution. I need to examine the early war and its participants.
I also wonder under which circumstances France could win such a war so fast. And why France would only want Alsace-Lorraine back and perhaps most or all colonies. If the war is short, it means in most cases that the German Empire suffers a devastating defeat.
I could definitely use your suggestions about the United States.
How do we make the Finish Civil War more miserable?
Your ideas about the Finish Civil War are great, but to determine what happens to Finland, I need to create a basic timeline for the Great Powers after which I could examine the effects on the smaller countries and increase their chaos.
 
Great. Thanks you for your contribution. I need to examine the early war and its participants.
I also wonder under which circumstances France could win such a war so fast. And why France would only want Alsace-Lorraine back and perhaps most or all colonies. If the war is short, it means in most cases that the German Empire suffers a devastating defeat.
I could definitely use your suggestions about the United States.

Thanks; I'm not as familiar with the European part, but along with no Haber Process in 1905, you could also have an anarchist assassinate someone in the French government after a series of major victories. The chaos in France could lead them to decide (once theyr ealizethe Germans didn't do it) that they have too many of their own problems, and the new leader chooses to just take A-L and colonies isntead of forcing much harsher damages.

Austria-Hungary doesn't support Germany because the Germans seem to be the aggressor, but when WWI does break out, when A_H is clearly wronged, it all comes tumbling down and everyone bleeds each other white.

Again, though, I don't know the logistics of how that would work.
 
Maybe with Britain and Russia too occupied with their own affairs to deal with Persia, the Jungle Movement could become powerful enough to touch off a full-scale civil war?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle_Movement_of_Gilan
I don't know it at the moment, but more chaos in Britain and Russia would certainly change the political situation in Persia. But my knowledge on this country and its history is far to limited, to say at the moment, which fraction could become dominant or create chaos.

Again, though, I don't know the logistics of how that would work.
So I need to do more research about French Politics between 1900 and 1925 to find some ways.
This thread has created enough options to work on it for the next weeks.
A short earlier war creates several options to change Europe a little bit to increase the damage of a Great War some years after it.
 
Top