AHC WI Germany Wins World War I

With any PoD after 1900, and preferably after the assassination of Archduke Franz-Ferdinand, have Germany and the Central Powers win World War I. If Germany won, would it get its Mittleafrika colonies that it aspired to(it could take the Congo from Belgium). What would be the situation in Europe TTL? How would France handle a second humiliation by Germany? What would happen to Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans? What would be the longer term effects? What if?
 
Its pretty easy to make TLs where Germany ends up with the Pas De Calais in 1914, Austria waits to attack in Galacia, leaving the CP in much better military situation after 1914. Italy stays neutral. No unrestricted submarine war necessary. Russia quits a few months earlier than OTL. Overwhelming offensive in 1918. Germany makes peace in a position of advantage.

Honestly though colonies are worth less than chunks of European territory by far, but the British over value colonies, so it makes sense for Germany to giver up her colonies in exchange for Briery or Minsk or some such European places.
 
I agree that it is easy to get a TL where the CP win WW1. I think the best ones are a better 1914 setting up a more advantageous position to allow them to win the long war, such as holding more of the Channel coast.
 
Germany would probably set up puppet states in the east, consisting of Ukraine, Belarus, Finland, Poland, the Baltic states and the Caucasus. Russia COULD also be forced to grant independence to Central Asia, but that's highly hypothetical. The Ottoman Empire absorbs Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Algeria from Britain, France and Italy. Morocco would likely be granted independence and receive protection from Germany. Both France AND Russia would both have communist revolutions and whether or not they succeed depends on the condition of the German economy. Parts of Eastern France and Western Russia would be demilitarized and be forced to pay reparations. Germany would have unprecedented dominance in Europe. France would not stand against losing twice to the German Empire and democracy would probably be discredited. If the communist revolutions succeed, France and Russia to, overtime, built up their countries significantly and seek to take revenge on Germany. But France's population was too small compete against Germany and Russia's technology was way backward. Much time will pass before they can challenge German authority. Austria-Hungary will either reform or be split into into several countries. In that case, Austria would be seceded into the German Empire. The Ottomans would have a similar situation. But since the Central Powers won, there is no split of mandates across the Middle East by Britain and France. That means a much more peaceful future for the Middle East. It's uncertain what will happen in Europe afterwards. Will Germany keep it's authority or will France and Russia have their bloodthirsty revenge. Britain and America will pretty much be the only main sectors of democracy, while Mussolini enjoys even greater success influencing Italy into a fascist state.
 
The Ottoman Empire absorbs Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Algeria from Britain, France and Italy.

Pretty reasonable, except I don't see this Africa part. Britain won't want to give up Egypt and will be hard to force them too. If the war is long the Germans will want to cash out and get peace, if they already have chunks and Russia and France, why drag on the war for the sake of the Ottomans who probably have strips of Russia already. Algeria is too hard for the Ottomans to hold down (unless Ottoman rule is nominal and the place is defacto then run by locals)
 
Pretty reasonable, except I don't see this Africa part. Britain won't want to give up Egypt and will be hard to force them too. If the war is long the Germans will want to cash out and get peace, if they already have chunks and Russia and France, why drag on the war for the sake of the Ottomans who probably have strips of Russia already. Algeria is too hard for the Ottomans to hold down (unless Ottoman rule is nominal and the place is defacto then run by locals)
Fair enough.
 
Germany would probably set up puppet states in the east, consisting of Ukraine, Belarus, Finland, Poland, the Baltic states and the Caucasus.
Finland would more likely be independent than a German puppet state, as they would not be occupied by the Germans. Also, by the terms of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Ukraine was to be made independent from Russia without being a German puppet. Most likely Germany would have Poland, Belarus, Lithuania, and the UBD as puppets, with independent allied republics of Finland and Ukraine.
 
The Ottoman Empire would probably remain unchanged in size, they are too weak and immaterial to the rest of the European powers to be able to expand either into North Africa where the French and British would beat them back, the Balkans(we saw how that went last time) or the Caucusus(Russia would push them back). However they would retain control over the Middle East and be a force of relative stability and their decline may be temporarily halted. Also I think Germany would definitely push for more colonies, as per Weltpolitik they desired African colonies and their own 'place in the sun' and emerging victorious they would be in a position to take it. They may not get all 'Mittleafrika' but I think they could keep their colonies and grab a few more, maybe they take the Congo from Belgium.
 
In the peace, Bulgaria would expand to control Macedonia from Serbia and potentially Greek Macedonia. Dobrudja would likely also be taken back from Romania if Romania joins the Entente. Austria-Hungary would either annex or, more likely, make puppets of Montenegro and the remnants of Serbia. Potentially they would also take Veneto from Italy, but I don't know how plausible this is. In the west, Germany would annex Luxembourg, annex parts of eastern Belgium, and make the rest of Belgium a puppet state. The Belgian puppet could potentially also be expanded to include Pas de Calais. With regards to colonies, Germany wanted to annex a large portion of central Africa, but they would probably be unable to do this. I imagine that in the peace they would merely have their occupied colonies returned, with France possibly being forced to return independence to Morocco. Finally, the Belgian Congo would remain with the Belgian puppet state, and it might be transferred from Belgium to Germany at a later date.
 
Finland would more likely be independent than a German puppet state, as they would not be occupied by the Germans. Also, by the terms of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Ukraine was to be made independent from Russia without being a German puppet. Most likely Germany would have Poland, Belarus, Lithuania, and the UBD as puppets, with independent allied republics of Finland and Ukraine.

If the OTL gives us any pointers, then Finland will most likely be ostensibly politically independent, with an economy heavily tied to the German Reich. In other words, not an actual puppet, but "a client state" or "a satellite" would not be far from the mark. The relationship between Finland and Germany would be something like that between Finland and the USSR post-1945 IOTL, with the exception that the Finns will be much more positive towards being a junior partner in a system led from Berlin than one led from Moscow. Whether or not Finland gets a German king will also have an effect on the Finnish position. And even then the devil is in the details - was that king imposed by the Germans, or was he actually invited to Finland by the locals as IOTL? Will he act as a loyal German subject of the Kaiser, or will he come to think that his duty is to the Finnish state first and the German empire only second? What are his relations with the Finnish parties, the parliament, the military, the nationalist militias, the traditional Finnish elite, etc? All of these will have an effect on the Finnish position vis-a-vis Berlin and the German system in Europe, and there is a significant variation to be found there, within certain limits.

One particular example is that of the Finnish military. In any case it will be heavily influenced by German officers, as many Germans will be there to build it up in the early years and decades. But, depending on who is in charge and what choices are made, the Finnish military will either be a de facto part of the German armed forces, only with Finnish insignia and slightly different uniforms, or then it will became an actually independent armed formation, albeit one with heavy German influence.

On balance, I believe Finland would rather be more independent than less. The reason is that Germany ITTL would have a lot on its plate, and Finland is peripheral in many ways. Germany has no real reason to use heavy-handed policies towards this northern, mostly harmless nation that would look like a top of the class student among the new national units created in Europe. This would be a limited sort of independence, mind you, one that would be about the ability to decide things in internal politics while in foreign relations Finland would have to toe the German line very closely. But I doubt most of the Finns would really mind - Germanophilia was quite prevalent in early 20th century Finland, among both the right and the left.
 
Last edited:
With any PoD after 1900, and preferably after the assassination of Archduke Franz-Ferdinand, have Germany and the Central Powers win World War I. If Germany won, would it get its Mittleafrika colonies that it aspired to(it could take the Congo from Belgium). What would be the situation in Europe TTL? How would France handle a second humiliation by Germany? What would happen to Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans? What would be the longer term effects? What if?
Hmm, for mine I set 1890 as the divergence period and altered a few points during and after the Boer war to make the British military modernisation less efficient (terminating Lee Enfield and .303 production before the new .280 round and rifle are ready, no Haldane reforms et cetera) and killed off Churchill in 1911 (his idiot grandstanding got him a bullet[1]) so the British forces were significantly but not enormously (say 5-10%) less efficient (less emphasis on aircraft, dithering on the use of oil fuelled engines [2] et cetera). The Germans won in 1915, though it was more of a negotiated peace than total victory.

The consequences were: [not exactly plausible, I had a particular endpoint in mind]
1. Germany experienced a lurch towards the Social Democrats and democracy in general, while maintaining significant control on it's not-really-an-empire in eastern Europe.
2. France was pissed, went revanchist but later softened and relations with Germany improved, especially after the spread of authoritarianism/fascism in the mid thirties.
3. Russia fell apart, messily, but managed a weak central government. After the Big Slump it went pan-Slavic/religious/anti-Semitic/imperialist nuts and tried to conquer the world.
4.This caused the Eastern (or Autumn) War [3]. This got nasty [4]. Parts of eastern Europe are still fenced off.
5. The Austro-Hungarians managed a controlled, slow motion, collapse under Franz-Ferdinand into a Danubian Federation. Some bits merged into Germany after the Eastern War.
6. The Ottomans held together until the 1960s when a series of smallish civil wars triggered EuroFed intervention.
7. No Spanish Flu. Instead A(H1N1) arrived in the mid thirties during the Big Slump as the "Okie 'flu".
8. The United States isn't. It came apart under a morass of economic and political problems in the 1930s too, though without 'proper' civil war. The situation isn't particularly bad (at least once the New Confederacy was toppled[5]). By 1970 there's a Canadian/Californian/New England dominated North American Confederation that's rather like the OTL EEC but with distinct federal ambitions.
9. As of 1970 the world's favourite rogue state is the British Republic, it's one mighty empire almost gone there's growing concern about what will happen when it finally collapses.
10. The European Federation is a social democratic super-state and the global superpower. It's rather complacent expecting the world to eventually embrace the One True Way of social democracy. It has a few shocks coming.
11. Other significant players are the Indian Federation (a nice place to visit unless they think you're English), Imperial Iran, the Japanese Empire (probably going to allow women to vote soon), China is, well China is a mess. South America is (without meddling from the north) becoming more unified and developed; currently the continent is dominated by a EuroFed aligned Brazil and a more neutral Argentine-Chilean block.
Nuclear weapons are common, and occasionally used. They're viewed as useful tactical problem solvers rather than end-of-the-world nightmares. Threatening mass city busting is passé, suited only to uncivilised and desperate (i.e. Britain).
12. Technology is rather more advanced. Personal computers and a rudimentary public internet exist, Mars has been visited and there are a couple of lunar bases and lots of stuff in orbit (including an interesting variety of weapons platforms).
Oh and there are aliens, invading pretty regularly and leaving bits of technology behind. And time travellers. And hibernating reptile people.
The 'one-percent' are quite aware of this.




[1] Well actually it was a time traveller but technically that wasn't a change to history.
[2] This would have significant long term consequences as Britain wouldn't become involved in the Middle East to the same degree (Anglo-Persian Oil Company) and would later be reliant on oil supplies from other sources, which would lead to the bloody maintenance of rule over British Nigeria.
[3] A term coined in the 1960s by a pair of historians who wrote the authoritative history of modern Europe. The Spring Wars were the period from 1870 onwards that created "modern" Europe, the Summer war was what we'd call WW1, the Autumn War was Civilised Europe v The Slavic Hordes (there was a tinge of bias). The Winter War is what we'd call the Cold War but with more players.
[4] Not quite to The Shape of Things to Come nasty but chemical weapons were used enthusiastically and the chemists came up with some interesting agents (chlorine trifluoride was used a little, for example) including second and third generation nerve gases. There was limited used of biological weapons (including anthrax) and more than a dozen German developed superbombs went off.
[5] People in this world have Views on the subject of state organised genocide, Russia was a one-off and no-one's going to tolerate a repeat, even of the brown-skinned. EuroFed and the League of Nations can move quite fast when public opinion is mobilised.
Also the Confederate nuclear weapons programme wasn't going to be tolerated.
 
Top