AHC: World War in Which Everybody Loses?

Is such as thing possible, like a world where after an ALT-World War, every country has its monarhy depposed and revolutions wreack havoc across the entire world?
 
Have WWII start a little later and include chemical weapons from the start. Germany uses the Amerika bomber to drop gas bombs on the US East Coast. Add a better German nuclear program and WWII ends with a nuclear exchange which leaves Europe an irradiated ruin while the Pacific theater sees Japan use biological weapons against US and Commonwealth forces leading the UK to use retaliate with anthrax attacks on mainland Japan.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
WW1: Last longer, the proletariat of Europe rises up, a quick peace where one side is proclaimed winner, but neither winner nor loser stay in power longer than a week.

WW2: The chemical weapons are released, and both sides go nuclear and nuke each other.
 
Calbear the "anglo-american nazi-war" - a good case may be done there's no real winner there...

Except a long sought OTL moon base. Shame its main purpose is as an untouchable weapon that can rain death down upon the enemies of freedom and liberty. But maybe it's for the better.....
 
I would argue there was no true winner in WW1. The Treaty of Versailles directly led to WW2, which ended every European nation's claim to global power and caused the Soviet Union tens of millions of deaths. One could argue the US "won" WW1 because of our position in 1945, but I rather think that being forced to win WW2 was an outcome the US neither envisioned or wanted in 1918.

CalBear's AA:N War doesn't qualify - the US, India, Australia, Canada and Great Britain came out as massive winners.

A late 50s/early 60s war between the Soviets and West might qualify - Europe and the USSR destroyed, the US weakened greatly, and global chaos, starvation and low-scale warfare.
 
Is such as thing possible, like a world where after an ALT-World War, every country has its monarhy depposed and revolutions wreack havoc across the entire world?
WWI came close. The only country that 'won' was the US which wasn't one of the original belligerents. Britain and France were in very sorry shape afterwards, and were pretty much guaranteed to lose their empires by the end of the war.

So, if you don't count the US, WWI could count.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
WWI came close. The only country that 'won' was the US which wasn't one of the original belligerents. Britain and France were in very sorry shape afterwards, and were pretty much guaranteed to lose their empires by the end of the war.

So, if you don't count the US, WWI could count.

Japan was a clear winner in WW1. The USA is mixed. We were clearly winning until we entered the war. In the war, we spent 22 billion (22 years of normal federal budget) and gained almost nothing. Better choice for no winners is to keep Japan and USA out of WW1. And you should get a war with basically everyone worse off than if there was no war.
 
I agree that having WWI last longer, but you would have to have no Japanese involvement and more importantly you need complete American neutrality. No loans to the Entente, no favoritism of the Entente at all. I think you would see both sides batter each other to exhaustion and it would end with a status quo peace while all the countries involved would have to deal with massive internal problems.
 
Japan was a clear winner in WW1. The USA is mixed. We were clearly winning until we entered the war. In the war, we spent 22 billion (22 years of normal federal budget) and gained almost nothing. Better choice for no winners is to keep Japan and USA out of WW1. And you should get a war with basically everyone worse off than if there was no war.
Right. Forgot about Japan in WWI. Yes, she made out like a bandit.

The US got a massive relative boost, but, as you point out, one can debate how much of a 'win' it was.
 
Top