Another CP-victory peace and WWII thread

Your problem is that you're using PoDs very favourable to the CP, giving an an early victory, but then you want their victory to be absolute. Their war-aims didn't become absolute until they had been radicalised by a war they were in the process of losing.

While I generally agree with you, I have to say, the September Plan does not seem indicative of a mild peace.
 
While I generally agree with you, I have to say, the September Plan does not seem indicativ of a mild peace.

No, but it doesn't mention Egypt or Ukraine. The CP war aims took until after 1916 to become absolute, but German domination of Europe was always taken pretty much as read.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Your problem is that you're using PoDs very favourable to the CP, giving an an early victory, but then you want their victory to be absolute.

The solution to this apparent condundrum lies in the fact that ITTL victory comes to the CP somewhat earlier (in 1916-17 over Russia & France, in 1917-18 over Britain) but not early enough to make them stick to a lenient peace. Two-three years of fighting are still quite enough to radicalize their war aims. CP Italy in 1915 and (optionally) CP Sweden in 1914 are very good, but they are not enough to provide a CP victory in 1915, which would be required to produce a really lenient peace.

As it concerns Ukraine and Egypt, there are specific reasons for them. As it had been said previously, ITTL CP war aims in Russia get somewhat expanded to include at least western Ukraine because they have the concern of feeding a rather expanded CP rooster, with Italy, Sweden, and Romania in it. If someone has any good idea of how to make this not a significant concern for the CP, I'd very happy to embrace it, and let Russia keep most of Belarus and Ukraine, even I'd still enforce the OTL Interbellum border, in Europe at least (IMO there is no apparent good reason why ITTL Soviet Russia would keep Transcaucasia).

Egypt gets lost because a big point of TTL is that Britain remains defiant to the initial CP peace offer, so the war continues and they lose several more bits of their empire, including Egypt.

you're assuming the Ottomans and other CP are able to conquer Egypt (as we saw OTL, an attack on Egypt means crossing the middle of a big trackless desert and then throwing yourself at an impassable defensive ditch which can float battleships: I'm pretty impressed that the Ottomans ever saw the canal, but it wasn't really a worthwhile use of their resources) before Britain makes peace.

I do. The Middle East campaign would be the main focus of the combined CP war effort in the final year of the war. It's not like they have anything else to do in Europe besides occupation duty. As you acknowledge, even IOTL the Ottomans reached the Canal, so the logistics issues were not that problematic. Besides, by this time France has fallen and Spain has gone CP, which casts supremacy in the Mediterranean to the CP. They can land troops to retake North Africa (and take Malta and Cyprus) and strike at Egypt from both sides.

Similar arguments apply to Oman: no way to get large numbers of men there by land.

I would assume that by the time Britain gets at the peace table, its overall situation has deteriorated enough that they can be successfully pressued to hand over Yemen and Oman.

If Russia has imploded, that's the cue for the Ottomans to cross modern Armenia and Azerbaijan (probably they'd just annex them),

My expectation as well, even if the Reds don't implode. With a victorious Ottoman Empire, I don't see the Soviets as able to retake Transcaucasia. Hence, Georgia remains independent, and Armenia and Azerbaijan go Ottoman.

and also help set up a Circassian-Dagestani state, replacing the Reds as MNC's sponsor against the Whites.

I suppose some butterfly management would be necessary to let the Reds defeat the MNC, then.

If it hadn't, they'd still want Kars and Batum and likely get them.

Yup.

As for Khuzestan, the Ottomans hadn't been sitting around there all war, and Britain would want it to Persian because of our oil interests in that neighbourhood.

But the CPs could easily conquer it in the final phase of the war, and at the peace table Britain's standing would not be good enough to enforce all their interests like that. They would be forced to focus their efforts on the really important stuff, like avoiding revolution at home, a Afrikaner uprising, keeping control of rebellious India, and the (futile) attempt to keep Ireland.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Now that (hopefully) we have more or less defined the issue of the Habsburg's downfall, there are several more issues that need to be defined as it concerns the post-war settlement and the course of the 1920s.

Ireland: my assumption here is that the Irish Independence War gets even more fierce and bloody than OTL, with the IRA folks getting even more emboldened by the Entente defeat and getting some CPs support (German submarines delivering weapons to the Irish), while Britain tries even harder to hold on to the island, but America pressures it not to go too far. I would expect that in the end, British attempts ultimately fail, and Ireland gets its independence. However, Ulster Unionists have a pretty much good support base, so they would not get swamped, either. My tentative expectation is that a Partition would still happen, but with a settlement less favorable to Ulster (Fermanagh and Tyrone would go to Ireland). OTOH, I would expect that Ireland would immediately or within a few years break Dominion ties and become an indepedent Republic. This could butterfly the Irish Civil War away.

China: I would (very tentatively) assume that the warlord era transpires much like OTL, but the KMT successful bid to reunify the country in late 1920s get German-Italian sponsorship and perhaps American support as well. Chinese Communists would get Soviet support as much as OTL, perhaps more, since this would be the area where there would be greatest expectations for expanding the revolution.

India: the British would have to clamp down harder on the independence movement in order to keep control of the country, when the pro-CP rebellons occur in the final phase of *WWI. This would make things simpler in teh short term, but likely build up a legacy of hatred that could diminish support for the Congress moderates and increase it for the Chandra Bose radicals.

America: largely unchanged up to the Great Depression, but territorial gains of the Entente Cairbbean colonies could easily push it to take a more expansionistic stance and lead to the annexation of at least some of the Caribbean protectorates: Cuba, Nicaragua, Panama, the Dominican Republic (Haiti is already too much of a basket case and racially unappealing). Without intervention in WWI, punitive expedition against Pancho Villa is likely to blossom into a rather expanded intervention in the Mexican Revolution. This could result into the defeat of the leftist revolution and the vassallization of Mexico and/or the annexation of northern Mexico.

South America: largely unchanged, likely made somewhat even more unstable by a more expansionist America.

Africa: apart from the border changes, largely unchanged, except that the Afrikaners would get more uppity. Hence, I expect that Britain would unite southern Rhodesia to South Africa as a counterbalance.

Middle East: rather more stable than OTL under Ottoman suzerainty and with Zionism snuffed out.

South East Asia: mostly as OTL, possibly a bit more Soviet support to budding anticolonial movements.

Japan: largely unchanged.

Soviet Union: for story purposes, it is assumed that the Zinoviev-Trotzki faction wins the post-Lenin power struggle, and becomes more aggressive and expansionist in the long term. However, during the 1920s, it would be weaker than OTL without western Ukraine and Transcaucasia. It would have to make a earlier, bigger push to develop Siberian and Central Asian resources in order to feed growing industry. Luckily, it kept the Kharkov-Donetz basin. Perhaps ITTL the Holodor hits Russia proper and Central Asia harder, in order to free up resources for industrialization.

France: more or less, we may copy and paste Weimar Germany here, with different names.

Iberia: I'm uncertain here, dunno how much integration with the CP economic union would accelerate industrialization, and how much this would affect political instability.

A-H: collapse and partition in the late 1920s has been covered up.

Germany, Italy (and likely Sweden as well): would have a wholly parallel political development. Somewhat rocky but ultimately successful transition to mostly parliamentary constitutional monarchies, although the old elites and the army would keep a lot of influence (albeit a dwindling one, in the case of the landed elites) and share it with the mass parties (an emerging party system of 3-4 major parties, the christian democrats, the socialists, the conservative-nationalists, and the liberals) and the business interests. In the case of Italy, the economic boom and transition to full industrialization anticipated by three decades. Liberal conservative democracies with social democratic elements (budding welfare systems) and militarist imperialism.

Britain: Hmm, the most puzzling issue. Tentatively a barely averted pre-revolutionary situation in the wake of military defeat, collapse of the Liberals, a temporary Tory takeover and attempt to hold on to the Empire, futile in Ireland, temporarily successful in India, growing social unrest, until the *General Strike leads to an authoritarian regime change.
 
The solution to this apparent condundrum lies in the fact that ITTL victory comes to the CP somewhat earlier (in 1916-17 over Russia & France, in 1917-18 over Britain) but not early enough to make them stick to a lenient peace. Two-three years of fighting are still quite enough to radicalize their war aims. CP Italy in 1915 and (optionally) CP Sweden in 1914 are very good, but they are not enough to provide a CP victory in 1915, which would be required to produce a really lenient peace.

I'm not so sure about that. France didn't have any spare troops. What can they do? The Entente are going to start looking for terms as soon as they're losing, and if they can't oppose Italy on a whole front, how can they imagine themselves to be winning? At any rate, they won't survive 1916, when the French army buckled visibly; and what really put the hard-line faction into the driving seat in Berlin was Bethmann's failed 1916 attempt to make peace with Russia. The terms he was offering, though sensible (there's nothing for Germany in eastern Europe, and Russian treachery would doom the other Entente powers) were certainly leniant; any peace whereby Russia maintains some of its prime economic real-estate is not "leniant".

As it concerns Ukraine and Egypt, there are specific reasons for them. As it had been said previously, ITTL CP war aims in Russia get somewhat expanded to include at least western Ukraine because they have the concern of feeding a rather expanded CP rooster, with Italy, Sweden, and Romania in it. If someone has any good idea of how to make this not a significant concern for the CP, I'd very happy to embrace it, and let Russia keep most of Belarus and Ukraine, even I'd still enforce the OTL Interbellum border, in Europe at least

The Germans weren't starving until 1917/18. Romania, by the way, is also a large wheat exporter. If Germany makes peace with France and Russia in 1916, I don't food is a particular concern. They didn't ask for Ukraine in early 1918, even though the food problems were by then more severe. Any problems from other CPs (and like I said, Romania was an exporter: the Germans were eating that export after they occupied the country, true, but it's more than capable of feeding itself) would likely be balanced out by the early food situation being less dire. Was Italy a large food-importer? I don't know.

(IMO there is no apparent good reason why ITTL Soviet Russia would keep Transcaucasia).

Soviet Russia, given Trotsky and Lenin's whacky negotiating strategy, wouldn't even keep Ukraine or Estonia. My scenario is based on Russia making peace under the republic or possibly even the Tsar (although he's still on the way out). Kerensky let the country fall apart underneath him because he was hoping that Britain and France would win the war and he could sit at the victors table (his epynonymous offensive showed the Russia was just abrely capable of defending its own frontline, in Europe, anyway); if they're obviously losing, peace is an obvious move. Even the Tsar might be persuaded to make a peace by Sturmer if the military situation is really awful, although he'd still fall eventually, no doubt.

If that's the case, the Russians are at any rate holding in the Caucasus (OTL, they were winning, fat lot of good that it did them); if not, they're losing the lot.

Egypt gets lost because a big point of TTL is that Britain remains defiant to the initial CP peace offer, so the war continues and they lose several more bits of their empire, including Egypt.

That France would cease to be a great power if defeated, and that its existance as a great power was indispensible to British security, was the reason for having a war in the first place. The Britain of 1916 was not that of 1941. It had neither the USA, nor the USSR, nor a sense of apocalyptic fatalism to call on. As in France, the men of total victory only took over here in 1916: I'm not sure if that will even happen.

I do. The Middle East campaign would be the main focus of the combined CP war effort in the final year of the war. It's not like they have anything else to do in Europe besides occupation duty. As you acknowledge, even IOTL the Ottomans reached the Canal, so the logistics issues were not that problematic.

A small Ottoman force, through extensive planning and with the help of camels (and rather low on ammo IIRC) were able to get to the canal and get shot to bits. That was when Britain wasn't expecting an attack and prepared for it.

Besides, by this time France has fallen and Spain has gone CP, which casts supremacy in the Mediterranean to the CP. They can land troops to retake North Africa (and take Malta and Cyprus) and strike at Egypt from both sides.

They can what? I don't believe Spain had a fleet worthy of any particular consideration. I'm not sure what the Italian navy was like, but I somehow doubt that it - at first facing the French navy as well - would be in fit shape to defeat the RN all by itself so casually.

I would assume that by the time Britain gets at the peace table, its overall situation has deteriorated enough that they can be successfully pressued to hand over Yemen and Oman.

We are more-or-less unassailable. Sure, making peace is the sensible option (and hence we'd do it early), but there's very little to hold over us once our allies are beaten.

My expectation as well, even if the Reds don't implode. With a victorious Ottoman Empire, I don't see the Soviets as able to retake Transcaucasia. Hence, Georgia remains independent, and Armenia and Azerbaijan go Ottoman.

I wasn't referring to the "Reds" imploding, but to "Russia". After the February Revolution, the Russian army in the Caucasus began to filter home, but it would still be some time before the Ottomans organised an offensive back to the pre-war border and beyond. If, as in the scenario I sketch, Russia makes peace before total collapse, the Ottomans would probably receive only Kars and Batum - as at Brest-Litovsk, which (although distant from realities on the ground, where there was no Soviet power and lots of Ottoman troops) showed that the Germans didn't care much about Azerbaijan.

I suppose some butterfly management would be necessary to let the Reds defeat the MNC, then.

They never actually fought. National autonomy and de-Cossackisation went over well with the Circassians, who had been fighting a struggle for existance against Denikin. Some villages apparently turned out with red flags. Once the establishment of Soviet power at gunpoint set in, there was an insurrection of the more Islam-motivated elements likely to be more pro-Ottoman; but unlike those faced by Stalin and the Tsar, it was ended quickly and without ethnic cleansing, and pro-Circassian policies continued.

The Ottomans, however, sent detachments as far as Petrovsk (Makhachkala) to clear out Russian garrisons even IOTL. I don't see any way to avoid a Shamilist state if the Ottomans cross the Caucasus.

But the CPs could easily conquer it in the final phase of the war, and at the peace table Britain's standing would not be good enough to enforce all their interests like that. They would be forced to focus their efforts on the really important stuff, like avoiding revolution at home, a Afrikaner uprising, keeping control of rebellious India, and the (futile) attempt to keep Ireland.

I find it interesting that even though there's no terribly realistic threat to Britain (not in CP hands, anyway), we're still the ones unable to insist on minor concerns - even though I don't think the Ottomans ever expressed interest in Khuzestan, so it's a minor concern for them.

Oh, and there was an Afrikaner uprising. Smuts and Botha put it down without calling on a single British soldier, decapitating the (small) radical pro-German element among the Afrikaners.

The Irish conflagration began after the election: with a war, there is of course no election and no opportunity for SF to organise an alternative legislature. Britain's policies in wartime Ireland were absurdly heavy-handed, but if there had been a German plot (and there wasn't) it would have been repressed pretty ruthlessly. When the news was all from France and young men dying in horrible ways was a fact of the times, nobody spared much notice for large-scale internment of innocent civilians in Ireland.

India is probably more plausible than the other two, but I still consider it unlikely: German attempts to stir up India appear to have been small and mismanaged. The British Indian Army was mostly reliable throughout the war: unsurprising, given that at that point there was still a lot of hope riding on the promises given to India of autonomy after good war-service, which didn't really materialise post-war. Although notably, even after this disillusion and the coming-of-age of the independence movement, which by the latter 30s was pretty much unstoppable, Indians seeing their colonial overlord in dire straits overwhelmingly preferred the British Indian Army to revolt.
 
Last edited:
Your problem is that you're using PoDs very favourable to the CP, giving an an early victory, but then you want their victory to be absolute. Their war-aims didn't become absolute until they had been radicalised by a war they were in the process of losing. In Russia, for example, nobody thought much about German-dominated Ukraine until they actually marched into the place; and in the Middle East, you're assuming the Ottomans and other CP are able to conquer Egypt (as we saw OTL, an attack on Egypt means crossing the middle of a big trackless desert and then throwing yourself at an impassable defensive ditch which can float battleships: I'm pretty impressed that the Ottomans ever saw the canal, but it wasn't really a worthwhile use of their resources) before Britain makes peace. Similar arguments apply to Oman: no way to get large numbers of men there by land.

If Russia has imploded, that's the cue for the Ottomans to cross modern Armenia and Azerbaijan (probably they'd just annex them), and also help set up a Circassian-Dagestani state, replacing the Reds as MNC's sponsor against the Whites. If it hadn't, they'd still want Kars and Batum and likely get them.

As for Khuzestan, the Ottomans hadn't been sitting around there all war, and Britain would want it to Persian because of our oil interests in that neighbourhood.

Actually, the attack on the canal was a very worthwhile use of resources. It hardly used any, and losses were minimal. It was more of a large probe than anything, with a slim chance of costing the British Egypt if it could succeed, but seizing the initiative and putting the British on the defensive if it failed. The Ottomans did actually manage to get men across the canal, BTW, just not enough to maintain a bridgehead. As it was, the British didn't manage any offensives until the last year of the war.

The Sinai isn't much of a barrier - it would just take the extension of the rail line and you could transport a huge army across, much like the British eventually did.

I suppose it's possible for Egypt to be gained, it just seems unlikely, and I'm not sure the Ottomans have the resources to hold onto so much unwilling territory. You could probably return Egypt to its status quo ante 1882, where it's autonomous under Ottoman suzerainty, but that's about it.

Aden I suppose is possible, but it would be difficult to force the issue if the British resist.

Kuwait on the other hand, is easy, and probably Cyprus.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I'm not so sure about that. France didn't have any spare troops. What can they do?

Pressure the British to throw more and more troops of their own in the furnace, which in turns prompts London to try and scramble new allies, I suppose.

The Entente are going to start looking for terms as soon as they're losing, and if they can't oppose Italy on a whole front, how can they imagine themselves to be winning? At any rate, they won't survive 1916, when the French army buckled visibly; and what really put the hard-line faction into the driving seat in Berlin was Bethmann's failed 1916 attempt to make peace with Russia.

Franco-Russian collapse within 1916 is good enough. And it seems that for TTL story purposes, we have to assume political-diplomatic butterflies make the 1916 peace talks fail (for Russia it may be as simple as Nicky seeing messages from God in the clouds that he has spurn cowardly peace talks and carry on, that last-ditch *Brusilov Offensive shall be a decisive success, and so on), which in turns hardens Germany's position and makes France and Britain reluctant to undergo new peace talks.

The Germans weren't starving until 1917/18. Romania, by the way, is also a large wheat exporter. If Germany makes peace with France and Russia in 1916, I don't food is a particular concern. They didn't ask for Ukraine in early 1918, even though the food problems were by then more severe. Any problems from other CPs (and like I said, Romania was an exporter: the Germans were eating that export after they occupied the country, true, but it's more than capable of feeding itself) would likely be balanced out by the early food situation being less dire. Was Italy a large food-importer? I don't know.

No, Italy was not a large food importer, OTOH I dunno about 1910s food balance of Netherlands and Sweden. If they do not add substantially to the CP foodstuff bill, your point makes sense. This is the first really good argument that I read about why the CPs would not have to purposefully ask Ukraine at the peace table in the first place.

Soviet Russia, given Trotsky and Lenin's whacky negotiating strategy, wouldn't even keep Ukraine or Estonia. My scenario is based on Russia making peace under the republic or possibly even the Tsar (although he's still on the way out). Kerensky let the country fall apart underneath him because he was hoping that Britain and France would win the war and he could sit at the victors table (his epynonymous offensive showed the Russia was just abrely capable of defending its own frontline, in Europe, anyway); if they're obviously losing, peace is an obvious move. Even the Tsar might be persuaded to make a peace by Sturmer if the military situation is really awful, although he'd still fall eventually, no doubt.

Well, for story purposes, ITTL Russia has to become a revanchist nasty power down the line. So everything just gets much simpler if the Reds (especially the Trotzki-Zinoviev faction in the long term) get in charge more or less as scheduled, instead of having to engineer a regime change after the war, as for Britain and France. As we said, the Tsar probably refuses to listen to reason until it's too late. And perhaps the course of the Revolution is accelerated by Russia suffering worse casualties ITTL, so Kerensky is unable to do much. So it seems that the Lenin and Trotzki would still be the ones to negotiate the peace in their own clever way :rolleyes:, which then coasts them Ukraine.

Or, possibly, we could assume the following trajectory: the Tsar refuses to see reason until he has the revolutionaries out his door, Kerensky gets into place and negotaties a peace which leaves Russia with OTL Interbellum Belarus and Ukraine, but no Estonia, Kresy, or Transcaucasia (honestly, the peace offer would be too generous otherwise by this point). But by then the domestic political situation has deteriorateed enough that even peace is not able to stop the Bolshevik coup (a bit tricky, I know, since continuation of the war was what pushed a lot of people in the Bolshevik camp, but perhaps doable with the right timing).

If that's the case, the Russians are at any rate holding in the Caucasus (OTL, they were winning, fat lot of good that it did them); if not, they're losing the lot.

As much as I'd like not to nerf Soviet Russia too much for story purposes, I keep thinking that leaving them with Transcaucasia ITTL is a bit too generous to be credible (Estonia is frankly out of the question). Northern Caucasus, yes, but I'm a bit hesitant about the rest.

As in France, the men of total victory only took over here in 1916: I'm not sure if that will even happen.

As I said above, we can assume that political-diplomatic butterflies make it happen. :D

A small Ottoman force, through extensive planning and with the help of camels (and rather low on ammo IIRC) were able to get to the canal and get shot to bits. That was when Britain wasn't expecting an attack and prepared for it.

What AHP said in post #66. :D:cool:

They can what? I don't believe Spain had a fleet worthy of any particular consideration. I'm not sure what the Italian navy was like, but I somehow doubt that it - at first facing the French navy as well - would be in fit shape to defeat the RN all by itself so casually.

The RN now has to face the HSF and the Dutch Fleet alone, too. But if necessary, we may easily assume that once France goes down, CP armistice negotiators tell the French government that if the MN is not handed over to the CP in working order, or, God forbid, is sent to British ports, ...unpleasant things shall happen to occupied France. The same trick could be done with Russia.

We are more-or-less unassailable. Sure, making peace is the sensible option (and hence we'd do it early), but there's very little to hold over us once our allies are beaten.

Germany can easily restart USW. With all of continental Europe in the CP or occupied by them, America can see the writing on the wall and is eager to restart trade with the continent. They shall look the other way, and pro-British lobbies shall be laughed out of Congress, since by now UK blockade, not CP USW, are the greatest threat to their trade interests.

I remember reading an enlightening piece by Ferguson that USW carried to its full consequences would have surely brought Britain to starvation in the end.

I wasn't referring to the "Reds" imploding, but to "Russia". After the February Revolution, the Russian army in the Caucasus began to filter home, but it would still be some time before the Ottomans organised an offensive back to the pre-war border and beyond. If, as in the scenario I sketch, Russia makes peace before total collapse, the Ottomans would probably receive only Kars and Batum - as at Brest-Litovsk, which (although distant from realities on the ground, where there was no Soviet power and lots of Ottoman troops) showed that the Germans didn't care much about Azerbaijan.

What I said above, although your B-L point is compelling, given that such negotiations were occurring with the Bolsheviks in charge already. Although I do not find unreasonable ITTL for Germany to be a bit more mindful of being generous with their Ottoman allies.

They never actually fought. National autonomy and de-Cossackisation went over well with the Circassians, who had been fighting a struggle for existance against Denikin. Some villages apparently turned out with red flags. Once the establishment of Soviet power at gunpoint set in, there was an insurrection of the more Islam-motivated elements likely to be more pro-Ottoman; but unlike those faced by Stalin and the Tsar, it was ended quickly and without ethnic cleansing, and pro-Circassian policies continued.

That is nice.

The Ottomans, however, sent detachments as far as Petrovsk (Makhachkala) to clear out Russian garrisons even IOTL. I don't see any way to avoid a Shamilist state if the Ottomans cross the Caucasus.

OTOH, they might not cross it, and limit their interests to Transcaucasia.

I find it interesting that even though there's no terribly realistic threat to Britain (not in CP hands, anyway), we're still the ones unable to insist on minor concerns - even though I don't think the Ottomans ever expressed interest in Khuzestan, so it's a minor concern for them.


Those damned u-boats. :D

Oh, and there was an Afrikaner uprising. Smuts and Botha put it down without calling on a single British soldier, decapitating the (small) radical pro-German element among the Afrikaners.

OTOH, Britain being on the losing end could make the Afrikaners a bit more... restive, although I agree that ultimatelyy Smuts and Botha would still easily get the upper hand.

The Irish conflagration began after the election: with a war, there is of course no election and no opportunity for SF to organise an alternative legislature. Britain's policies in wartime Ireland were absurdly heavy-handed, but if there had been a German plot (and there wasn't) it would have been repressed pretty ruthlessly. When the news was all from France and young men dying in horrible ways was a fact of the times, nobody spared much notice for large-scale internment of innocent civilians in Ireland.

A compelling point. So we have to assume that TTL Irish Revolution shall explode, with much enhanced force, after the end of the war. Waht do you think of the scenario I proposed for Ireland (an even nastier independence war, still partition but a shrunken-down NI with only the four northeastern counties, Ireland quickly going republican and neutral, and no or a toned-down civil war) ?

India is probably more plausible than the other two, but I still consider it unlikely: German attempts to stir up India appear to have been small and mismanaged. The British Indian Army was mostly reliable throughout the war: unsurprising, given that at that point there was still a lot of hope riding on the promises given to India of autonomy after good war-service, which didn't really materialise post-war. Although notably, even after this disillusion and the coming-of-age of the independence movement, which by the latter 30s was pretty much unstoppable, Indians seeing their colonial overlord in dire straits overwhelmingly preferred the British Indian Army to revolt.

I would expect that German-Ottoman attempts would get somewhat more successful ITTL, with Britain getting a beating, but your last point has merit. I would only retort that a winning large CP coalition of civilized constitutional monarchies might look a better sponsor for independence than the Axis.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I suppose it's possible for Egypt to be gained, it just seems unlikely, and I'm not sure the Ottomans have the resources to hold onto so much unwilling territory. You could probably return Egypt to its status quo ante 1882, where it's autonomous under Ottoman suzerainty, but that's about it.

I suppose that some degree of autonomy within the Ottoman suzerainty could be easily granted, although I would expect that with an Ottoman Empire on its way to recovery and reform, such autonomy would be somewhat curtailed in comparison to pre-1882 de facto independence. At the very least, I would expect a confederal "special relationship", with the Ottomans in charge of military, foreign policy, and economic affairs.

Also the Ottomans would be show up with the prestige of victorious liberators, so I expect some of that unwillingness not to be there.
 
MASSIVE BUMP.

Well, sorry for not post before, I have the final week on my university and how you can think gentlemen... that was hard but finally I finished that (but not with the grades than I expected, but well, looking forward), and like your make your analysis by country or region, I going to make my critic/advise/rant in the same order, to make that more quickly and organized.

Ireland: No major objections here, again the butterflies are pretty volatile... will be nice to see a full independence Ireland pro-CP like turtledove make in TL-191, but well the British still not beaten in home yet.. Well, the rest of Ireland will be for the *next round in TTL.. But again like your almost obsessive destroy Austria-Hungary even being a victor because the typical conception than the ethic chaos of A-H is something uncontrollable... but that is for the own topic.. But in general if the butterflies are bad for the British... losing Ireland will be only one of their own problems.

China: the warlord era is a must... that is unbuterflied away but again, i think here than the CP(why is your obsession of mention Italy in almost every line of your topics??... ) will not support the KMT, they doesn’t have the reason to do that, In OTL the German outsource military technology forgiven by Versailles with the KMT, here, with the anti-imperialist and soft leftist rhetoric of the KMT will not like to the new Ultra Imperialist(not in the so anti German Wilhelmine way but still having a big empire encompassing more than their homeland in the case of your love Italy) specially with their new gained addition(sew below critic) in South-East Asia, ‘old-china’ ‘sphere of influence’... they will be out of the China mess in ITTL, but for the defeated nations like France or SU, Outsource with some warlord(like Mao Communist) will be very good to experiment with military hardware.

India: Eurofed, I think even being the most realistic way possible.. We are extremely lenient there ( I read my ‘friend’ IBC post, and I partially agree with your comment), with the British being defeated(and even with the failed German-Hindu conspiracy) the wish for freedom from the general population will be more high, only the elites will want to keep the status-quo to gradual liberation, and like your say, here people like SCB with a rhetoric who will make Mao(he was a full nationalist, with several pink elements, like full industrialization but with women with full political status and the total illegalization of the caste system, and he is extremely secular who will lead problem with the Hindu and Islamic radicals like Nehru or Jinnai) look pale in comparison, but he like one of the follower of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ will lobby a lot in Berlin or with CP diplomats to support for another rebellion if *WW2 explode, and that will make more butterflies in India... but that it is own topic.

North America and the Caribbean (geopolitically corrected): Again I know your own over marked gringophlia. But remember... BEING A NEUTRAL DOESN’T MEANS BEING A CP. SEVERAL AMERICAN DIRECT ANEXATION POST BELLUM IS EXTREMLY UNREALISTIC EVEN WITH THE ANGLOPHOBIA REMPLACING OTL GERMANOPHOBIA(EVEN THE SPD WILL NOT FORGET THE BIG LOANS TO THE ENTENTE WHEN GERMANY WAS STARVING...), well, the annexation of French possession are pretty realistic(but what the Dutch will won... only a few thing in Belgium full of Dutch already, and losing new guinea(you must change that, the Australian will not keep that unless they declare independence and negotiate a separate peace), the French Guyana and Caribbean possession is the another reward to a loyal ally than a ARROGANT NEUTRAL) and maybe several minor British island can be trade to forget the debt(but geopolitical vital island like Bermuda or Jamaica is a no-no until *WW2), about Mexico... the gringos lose interest was more because that was not their business, rather the WW1, and with WW fall in disgrace... the isolationist will have more political power.. and that is a must for the Great Depression (more intern inversion and the lack of the weakened European market, here dominated by CP Euro Zollverein and with a more poor France and Britain), for the minor Caribbean, unless the internationalist (ironically backed by your beloved Woodrow Wilson) won, the natural banana protectorate will be keep it, with the infamous result (the Somoza, the Masacre de las Bananeras in my home country, etc). But that demand debated.. You must make more realistic gains.. The gringos only become imperialist by OTL WW2 and TTL WW2 will have the same effect... only wait for your wet dreams...

South America: In fact what not only the united states expansionist who weak us... was the destruction of the old Primary goods Exportation based economy who make us have bad time in the interbellum... but general enjoy good times until Great Depression, but here we goanna be more poorer than OTL by the lack of the ‘losers immigration’(the Germans immigrate to Argentina, Brazil, Chile and a lesser extent the another Andean country... like my Colombia, the Syrian-Lebanese like my sheik or my best friend who is a Christian... of Muslim-Palestine heritage from Belen who create a lot of light-industries, like textiles ,etc and the German who create the biggest aviation company trying of not losing their technical knowledge... the SCADTA) who give us Immigrant with wished of created a new life and development... now loss in TTL, well, maybe another ethnic groups will replaced them(like the Jewish now with the defeated of the entente Zionist and the death of support of the Germans Zionist... like Einstein who now will not mess with one of Germany most beloved and reliable ally.. the Ottomans) but in general, we are butterfly hard to affect unless a direct butterfly affect us.(but with the British defeated, the Argentines will pressures for the Islas Malvinas more harder, even taking in the *WW2)

Africa: Besides Adding more black to counter-weight the Boers... with the legend of the victory of Von Lettow-Vorbeck and this black askaris will make some effect.. And the same will apply for the dream of Deutches Mittleafrika.. Having the ultra-resource rich Congo and their traditional colonies. Expect a future lot investment here, who gonna have effect in home... but being more stable than the entente colonies(Hamburger can give you more information about that). But why Italian Annexed so drastically Ethiopia (old Mussolini dream, jejeje =) but well, is only a lot of worthless land besides prestige..

Middle East: Taking detail in IBC and pasha post, the Middle East will be the new reinvigorated Ottoman Empire Playground... and like EF said, with the collapse of France a year early, the new focal point is the middle east... Egypt will become Ottoman direct vassal or even a semi-autonomous province, if too geopolitical vital now with the Ottomans and the CP controlling the Suez Channel and to avoid another british itromistion against the Ottomans, the rest of the peninsula will be renowned piece by piece, andif the war expand in the middle east, add the chance of the Arabian oil to be found more early and give the Ottomans the resource for a industrial boost... they for 1940’s(the most secure date for the *WW2) will have the same live like OTL Italy in that era(but more stronger thank to the german mission), and being nominally like one of the Big Eights great power in that Era...

S-E Asia: I have some complaing here(like Italy annexing Siam, because that was a neutral country in OTL to be a buffer between British Burma and French now German Indochina, and with the British still in Burma, them like a buffer is a must ), but in general now with Netherland in the CP, that will have a lot of inversion by their resource... but anti Imperialist activity will not be by the soviets... but by the Japanese(see next post)

Japan: You’re being very simplistic; yes the butterflies are littler but still exist. Here like the defeated by being an ally of the British will make bad blood, the soviet menace will make more militaristic than OTL, And Japan in alternate history is the wildcard of Asia, any action of them can change the web of alliance(like rejoin the entente with the French and brtish but not soviet in exchange to grab all china and CP colonies), going almost-alone like OTL or ironically being a co-belligerent of the CP if the antagonist against the SU is High(the enemy of my enemy...), but if the first two are followed... the US Philippines will make a problem for them, leading to the inevitable Jewel Port(that is my own unmentionable sea mammal meme) surprise attack and make the US president said: a day to life in infamy

Soviet Union: Know little of SU, for that not major comment, beside than the holodomor yes will be harder, and that will be a propaganda for the CP (With their Habsburg lead food rich West-Ukraine against the starving East Ukraine and maybe some border problem with some desperate immigrants ...

France: you’re very simplistic... they will be like Weimar republic... BUT TEN THOUSAND TIME WORSE, in fact the weimar republic problesm will be like... ‘good ‘time for them... only their desire of revenge and the Neo-Entente with SU and Britain can help them, and when the german start to have internal problems...make their rearmament and expansionist movements.
Iberia: Ironically is far away from the ‘Central’ powers and that will effect in the general welfare and the internal problem now with the most radical Portuguese independentist will not help, again with the Carlist(now backing by France to won an ally) or the Republican/Socialist, Spain problem were internal, and i don’t know how to butterfly away.. Even I can expect an alternate civil war with new belligerent who will make then out from general geopolitics for a while.. Against roll a dice (but not your loaded utopist and anti-Austrian one, you behave a lot like General Zod) over the affair

A-H: ................................................................................................................................................................ (avoid to make a comment, because you not will listen, and that is a fait accompli anyway, but again, A Danube Federation like the first step to Euro Verein or a more centralized Austro-Hungary weight more like the 4th or 5th Great power for the *ww2 rather the Italian irredentia dreams... but again is a close topic thank to you)

The Core Central Powers (in TTL anyway, besides the Ottomans): not so quickly with the utopian dreams... the realism is necessary here... in general Germany will reorganize internally(for that is better to keep the AH, let the Hapsburg the minority problems) with the minorities (from Luxemburg, Luttich, the rest of Lorraine, and Bohemia ) but after that, they will have an industrial boom who will make then to jump to be the 1st great power(the American will have less immediate IC and educated population), but they will suffer a crisis(maybe a little the Great depression, but most only an internal one will affect then TTL, but again, that is necessary to the Neo-Entente to make their movements) until the *ww2 implode... that is their own alternate history. Sweden, here like being an ally, I think they will won Finland in Personal union with Karelia(make bitter the soviet, but we need that) and create Sweden-Finland like a step to pan-scandinavism(both Norway to protect for the British and the Danish are now a minor power now) but that will not be until *ww2. Itally... your bella italia, again I agree but the Slavs will not be so quiet (they never are quiet), and they will prefer Slavs than the Old Italian roman overlord (The Slavs were the white slaves of the roman) but again... (i have material for the *WW2), they will kept in check for a while... but again industrial boom need economical one, and with a depression is hard.. But sustainable... again they will jump to 7th or 8th to be like 6th or even 5th Great power in TTL

Britian: Alongside Japan... the most hard to analyze... but keeping their empire with the defeat in the great war will be hard.. but possible and that will lead to several more authoritarian trend than ironically will clash with the dominions( Canada is pretty liberal and they want be independent for that an anti-USA policy post bellum can alienated Canada out , South Africa is divided, the Australias are scared by yellow peril), again hard to see, but ironically a cliché triumvirate of Dark Churchill with any colour Mosley and more authoritarian Edward VIII(who was philo-fascist ) to lead a neo-Entente is possible... again depent of use of abuse of cliché .
Again, a lot comment, because I like to argue, i’m (IN)FAMOUS for that, well, i planning a sketch for WW2 thanks to kaiserreich mod and another thing with my hobbit in geopolitics.... that wil be in another time.. I want good replies too

Att
Nivek von Beldo

P.S.1. Eurofed. You’re a friend or you were general Zod??

P.S.2. Who will be the leader of a Black Britain? Without fall in cliché or turtledove??
 

Eurofed

Banned
Ireland: No major objections here, again the butterflies are pretty volatile... will be nice to see a full independence Ireland pro-CP like turtledove make in TL-191, but well the British still not beaten in home yet..

This is the main reason why I would expect the Irish Revolution to be somewhat more successful than IOTL, but not wholly so. Besides, the Ulster Unionists have a good power base as well.

Well, the rest of Ireland will be for the *next round in TTL..

Of course. ;)

But again like your almost obsessive destroy Austria-Hungary even being a victor because the typical conception than the ethic chaos of A-H is something uncontrollable...

You don't ever give up on a pet issue, don't you ? :eek::p;)

China: the warlord era is a must... that is unbuterflied away but again, i think here than the CP(why is your obsession of mention Italy in almost every line of your topics??... )
It is part of my one-man campaign to break the widespread AH prejudice that because Italy sucked in OTL WWII, they have to be expected to be a negligible power and a wimp in any 19th-20th century TL, no matter the favorable butterflies.
;):p

More seriously, since they have bases and colonies in South East Asia, I expect Italy (and Netherlands, even if they don't have concessions in China) shall play some role in Chinese politics.

will not support the KMT, they doesn’t have the reason to do that, In OTL the German outsource military technology forgiven by Versailles with the KMT, here, with the anti-imperialist and soft leftist rhetoric of the KMT will not like to the new Ultra Imperialist(not in the so anti German Wilhelmine way but still having a big empire encompassing more than their homeland in the case of your love Italy) specially with their new gained addition(sew below critic) in South-East Asia, ‘old-china’ ‘sphere of influence’... they will be out of the China mess in ITTL, but for the defeated nations like France or SU, Outsource with some warlord(like Mao Communist) will be very good to experiment with military hardware.

Oh, I totally expect the Soviets shall make a strong bid to support both the CCP and the left-leaning factions of the KMT, even more so than OTL. I suppose France, when it recovers enough, may be another sponsor for the right-leaning KMT faction, as could America. Your ideological argument about why Germany might not want to support the right-wing KMT is good (by the way, it works for Britain, too), but then again, as IBC argued, they could do it nonetheless as a counterweight to Japanese expansionism in China, and/or when they realize the old colonial ways of expanding their influence in China do not cut it anymore, and spomsoring a local proxy is an alternative. Honestly, interwar China is one of the areas I have the biggest trouble to pin it down and pick a development.

India: Eurofed, I think even being the most realistic way possible.. We are extremely lenient there ( I read my ‘friend’ IBC post, and I partially agree with your comment), with the British being defeated(and even with the failed German-Hindu conspiracy) the wish for freedom from the general population will be more high, only the elites will want to keep the status-quo to gradual liberation, and like your say, here people like SCB with a rhetoric who will make Mao(he was a full nationalist, with several pink elements, like full industrialization but with women with full political status and the total illegalization of the caste system, and he is extremely secular who will lead problem with the Hindu and Islamic radicals like Nehru or Jinnai) look pale in comparison, but he like one of the follower of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ will lobby a lot in Berlin or with CP diplomats to support for another rebellion if *WW2 explode, and that will make more butterflies in India... but that it is own topic.

A very reasonable scenario. :D

well, the annexation of French possession are pretty realistic(but what the Dutch will won... only a few thing in Belgium full of Dutch already, and losing new guinea(you must change that, the Australian will not keep that unless they declare independence and negotiate a separate peace), the French Guyana and Caribbean possession is the another reward to a loyal ally than a ARROGANT NEUTRAL) and maybe several minor British island can be trade to forget the debt(but geopolitical vital island like Bermuda or Jamaica is a no-no until *WW2),

Well, the Dutch booty can be easily expanded by giving them all of New Guinea as you suggest. Again, the reason I'm averse to Anglo-French Caribbean possessions going to the CP is that they would pick an unnecessary feud with America owing to the Monroe Doctrine. It is wholly unreasonable for the CP to do so when their main colonial ambitions are in the Old World, where they are reaping large colonial empires. Again, eastern New Guinea works much better than the Entente Caribbean to expand Dutch booty. The latter can be swapped/sold to America to strengthen its bemevolence to the new order with little loss to the victors. Leaving Bermuda & Jamaica to the UK ? It could be done, I suppose, although I am more skeptical for Bahamas and British Guyana.

about Mexico... the gringos lose interest was more because that was not their business, rather the WW1, and with WW fall in disgrace... the isolationist will have more political power..

The US faction that was really averse to expansion in the Caribbean were the anti-imperialists. The isolationists were radically averse to entanglement in European alliances and wars, but as a rule they saw nothing wrong with US involvement or expansion in the rest of the Americas, which they recognized as America's chosen turf. Without involvement with WWI, America could keep its attention on the Pancho Villa expedition, and it is wholly possible that it could escalate into full-fledged intervention in the Mexican Revolution, and/or declared war with Mexico. Many isolationists shall have no problems with it, like they didn't with the war against Spain.

and that is a must for the Great Depression (more intern inversion and the lack of the weakened European market, here dominated by CP Euro Zollverein and with a more poor France and Britain),

True, but the GD may easily happen on schedule, and not interfere with some US annexations in the Caribbean during the 1920s.

The gringos only become imperialist by OTL WW2 and TTL WW2 will have the same effect... only wait for your wet dreams...


True.

well, maybe another ethnic groups will replaced them(like the Jewish now with the defeated of the entente Zionist and the death of support of the Germans Zionist... like Einstein who now will not mess with one of Germany most beloved and reliable ally.. the Ottomans) but in general, we are butterfly hard to affect unless a direct butterfly affect us.(but with the British defeated, the Argentines will pressures for the Islas Malvinas more harder, even taking in the *WW2)

Well, besides the fomer Zionists as you point out, South America could get some "losers immigration" with the French, as well as Russian White emigration going there instead of Britain and France as IOTL (although at leasdt part of the Russian emigres admittedly could go to the CP instead).

Africa: Besides Adding more black to counter-weight the Boers... with the legend of the victory of Von Lettow-Vorbeck and this black askaris will make some effect.. And the same will apply for the dream of Deutches Mittleafrika.. Having the ultra-resource rich Congo and their traditional colonies. Expect a future lot investment here, who gonna have effect in home... but being more stable than the entente colonies(Hamburger can give you more information about that). But why Italian Annexed so drastically Ethiopia (old Mussolini dream, jejeje =) but well, is only a lot of worthless land besides prestige..

All true. As for Ethiopia, butterfly making it side with the Entente (I got the idea from Emmett McFly55's TL), and Italy had a score to settle.

Middle East: Taking detail in IBC and pasha post, the Middle East will be the new reinvigorated Ottoman Empire Playground... and like EF said, with the collapse of France a year early, the new focal point is the middle east... Egypt will become Ottoman direct vassal or even a semi-autonomous province, if too geopolitical vital now with the Ottomans and the CP controlling the Suez Channel and to avoid another british itromistion against the Ottomans, the rest of the peninsula will be renowned piece by piece, andif the war expand in the middle east, add the chance of the Arabian oil to be found more early and give the Ottomans the resource for a industrial boost... they for 1940’s(the most secure date for the *WW2) will have the same live like OTL Italy in that era(but more stronger thank to the german mission), and being nominally like one of the Big Eights great power in that Era...

All very true. The Ottomans ought to experience a moderate renaissance and industrial boost. They won't (yet) be so economically developed as Italy, Hungary, or Sweden, but they shall have recovered a lot of their old standing as a major great power. Probably about #7 or #8 (can't say whether late interwar Turkey or Japan shall be stronger).

S-E Asia: I have some complaing here(like Italy annexing Siam, because that was a neutral country in OTL to be a buffer between British Burma and French now German Indochina, and with the British still in Burma, them like a buffer is a must ), but in general now with Netherland in the CP, that will have a lot of inversion by their resource... but anti Imperialist activity will not be by the soviets... but by the Japanese(see next post).

My opinion about Siam is that it narrowly escaped colonization much more as a result of Anglo-French rivalries in the region stalemating each other, rather than the great powers purposefully leaving it alone as a buffer. ITTL the CP don't need any such buffer (it does nothing to them that a well-fortified border with Burma can't do as well) and adding Siam to their gains allows to expand the gains of every ally in the region, moreover it is a raher valuable land. Buffers arose when rival powers or coalitions lay claim to the same area, here the CP are on the same boat, and defeated Britain has not the clout to enforce anything but keeping the core of its empire.

Japan: You’re being very simplistic; yes the butterflies are littler but still exist. Here like the defeated by being an ally of the British will make bad blood, the soviet menace will make more militaristic than OTL, And Japan in alternate history is the wildcard of Asia, any action of them can change the web of alliance(like rejoin the entente with the French and brtish but not soviet in exchange to grab all china and CP colonies), going almost-alone like OTL or ironically being a co-belligerent of the CP if the antagonist against the SU is High(the enemy of my enemy...), but if the first two are followed... the US Philippines will make a problem for them, leading to the inevitable Jewel Port(that is my own unmentionable sea mammal meme) surprise attack and make the US president said: a day to life in infamy.

Your points are reasonable. :D

Soviet Union: Know little of SU, for that not major comment, beside than the holodomor yes will be harder, and that will be a propaganda for the CP (With their Habsburg lead food rich West-Ukraine against the starving East Ukraine and maybe some border problem with some desperate immigrants ...

Historically the Soviet state was very efficient in preventing emigration during the Holodomor.

France: you’re very simplistic... they will be like Weimar republic... BUT TEN THOUSAND TIME WORSE, in fact the weimar republic problesm will be like... ‘good ‘time for them... only their desire of revenge and the Neo-Entente with SU and Britain can help them, and when the german start to have internal problems...make their rearmament and expansionist movements.

Yup, I meant that they shall sport rather similar problems as the Weimar Republic in kind, I agree that in degree they shall be rather worse.

Iberia: Ironically is far away from the ‘Central’ powers and that will effect in the general welfare and the internal problem now with the most radical Portuguese independentist will not help, again with the Carlist(now backing by France to won an ally) or the Republican/Socialist, Spain problem were internal, and i don’t know how to butterfly away.. Even I can expect an alternate civil war with new belligerent who will make then out from general geopolitics for a while..

All quite plausible and possible. I was just wondering if inclusion in the Euro Zollverein could increase their industrial development and hence ease their manifold socio-political problems a bit. I agree that things could still easily go as wrong as OTL for them. Portugal shall likely take a political path much akin to Catalonia within Iberia.

The Core Central Powers (in TTL anyway, besides the Ottomans): not so quickly with the utopian dreams... the realism is necessary here... in general Germany will reorganize internally(for that is better to keep the AH, let the Hapsburg the minority problems) with the minorities (from Luxemburg, Luttich, the rest of Lorraine, and Bohemia )

Well, I don't see Germany developing such radical minority problems ITTL. Alsace-Lorraine had been gradually making itself content with its German destiny before the war, ITTL victory shall confirm and reinforce that process. I expect Luxemburg to react to annexation much like A-L after 1870, some bad blood but long-term assimilation. Germany is annexing some extra chunks of Lorraine, there shall be some definite irredentist malcontent there (as well as in the chunks of Duaphine and Provence that Italy is getting), but demographically they shall be a minor presence in the German political landscape. As far as I know, Germany didn't annex Liege ITTL. As for Bohemia-Moravia, I think the solution that was discussed with IBC shall be mutually satisfying to Germans and Czechs alike, Germany annexes Sudetenland and Czechia becomes independent in a confederal relationship with Germany.

but after that, they will have an industrial boom who will make then to jump to be the 1st great power(the American will have less immediate IC and educated population), but they will suffer a crisis(maybe a little the Great depression, but most only an internal one will affect then TTL, but again, that is necessary to the Neo-Entente to make their movements) until the *ww2 implode...

I dunno whether ITTL Germany or America shall be #1 power economically in the interwar period. Probably shall be a neck to neck issue. But I agree with the industrial boom, and with them getting hit hard by the *Great Depression, which shall make room for the Neo-Entente to make their move.

Sweden, here like being an ally, I think they will won Finland in Personal union with Karelia(make bitter the soviet, but we need that) and create Sweden-Finland like a step to pan-scandinavism(both Norway to protect for the British and the Danish are now a minor power now) but that will not be until *ww2.

I think that a confederation or personal union with Finland is quite possible, just like a (con)federal Scandinavian union after *ww2. I dunno whether Finland shall get East Karelia (they shall surely get West Karelia from the start) after ww1 or ww2, it could go both ways.

Itally... your bella italia, again I agree but the Slavs will not be so quiet (they never are quiet), and they will prefer Slavs than the Old Italian roman overlord (The Slavs were the white slaves of the roman) but again... (i have material for the *WW2), they will kept in check for a while...

Oh, they shall be unhappy and irredentistic, no doubt, just like OTL (quite possibly somewat less so since there shall not be Fascist harshness on minorities), but overall Italian minority problems shall not be any really worse than OTL, here German South Tyrol is with Germany and its place is taken by the territories annexed from France, esp. French Riviera (Savoy, Nice, and Corsica do have old ties to Italy, so there shall be relatively less problems here, Corsicans shall be their own usual troublesome self but they were not a big problem for interwar France). As I said, I can easily see Italy only annexing western Dalmatia, if nothing less than that, which ought to tone down the increase in the Slav minority problem.

As a rule, I do expect minorities in CP countries to get autonomy (but not independence) after *ww2.

but again industrial boom need economical one, and with a depression is hard.. But sustainable... again they will jump to 7th or 8th to be like 6th or even 5th Great power in TTL.

My full expectation is that ITTL Italian interwar economic course shall closely mirror the OTL post-ww2 one. A strong economic boom in the late 1910s and 1920s which reshapes the country into a fully industrialized one, like OTL late 1950s-1960s (only accelerated ITTL since there shall be no need for a reconstruction start-up), fueled by integration in the German Euro Zollverein (like OTL CEE), followed by a serious downturn in the 1930s, like OTL 1970s, only worse, caused by the *great depression. There is still likely going to be an economic dualism between the fully industrialized and prosperous North and the depressed and backward South, although trade with the colonies could relatively amelionarate the standing of the South.

As it concerns the rankings of the interwar Great Powers, I do expect something like:

Germany, America, Britain, Russia, Italy, France, Japan, Ottoman Empire. Hungary, Netherlands, and Sweden closely following, dunno in which precise order. Then Brazil and Argentina.

Britian: Alongside Japan... the most hard to analyze... but keeping their empire with the defeat in the great war will be hard.. but possible and that will lead to several more authoritarian trend than ironically will clash with the dominions( Canada is pretty liberal and they want be independent for that an anti-USA policy post bellum can alienated Canada out , South Africa is divided, the Australias are scared by yellow peril), again hard to see, but ironically a cliché triumvirate of Dark Churchill with any colour Mosley and more authoritarian Edward VIII(who was philo-fascist ) to lead a neo-Entente is possible... again depent of use of abuse of cliché.

IMO it is not too clichè as long as we don't make Mosley the supreme leader. I think that Sir Henry Wilson and Lord Carson would be other good candidates for the ruling elite, as Mikestone proposed upthread. The succession by philo-fascist Edward VIII may be easily accelerated to support an authoritarian regime change if George V abdicates after the defeat. Personally I'd be tempted to make Dark Churchill the main Mussolini-like strongman, for familiarity and flavor, even if it is a Turtledovian clichè it has justification, with Edward VIII as the eager figurehead, and Mosley, Wilson, and Carson as secondary leaders, but it could be easily different.

If nothing else, I like making Dark Churchill a power-mad revanchist dictator in order to tease Brit fanboys and their worship of the man.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for coming late in the game, but Germany gets all THAT and doesnt get Zambia or Malawi?
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
Sorry for coming late in the game, but Germany get all THAT and doesnt get Zambia or Malawi?

I suppose that Germany could indeed get Zambia, so they would complete their control of the Katanga mines. Malawi would then follow by default, even if it is far less valuable.

Another item to revise in the peace treaty draft, alongside New Guinea to Netherlands.
 
I suppose that Germany could indeed get Zambia, so they would complete their control of the Katanga mines. Malawi would then follow by default, even if it is far less valuable.

Another item to revise in the peace treaty draft, alongside New Guinea to Netherlands.

Another question: why did you scrap off the Balkan war PoD?
 

Eurofed

Banned
Another question: why did you scrap off the Balkan war PoD?

Other regular posters disliked it and found it confusing, and as much as I'm fond of the PoD, I was getting enough grief... err, heated criticism about other developments I found just as or even more important, so I dropped it to narrow the issues of contention.
 
Other regular posters disliked it and found it confusing, and as much as I'm fond of the PoD, I was getting enough grief... err, heated criticism about other developments I found just as or even more important, so I dropped it to narrow the issues of contention.

Hm. OK then. Do you have any plans for the BoB?
 

Eurofed

Banned
Hm. OK then. Do you have any plans for the BoB?

I have not very definite plans yet for the strategic issues of *ww2. So far, my main concern in that angle has been not to make the revanchist block too weak. I think there are still too many fuzzy interwar issues to define yet to focus on *ww2.
 

Eurofed

Banned
After giving a lot of thought to the issue, I've come to the conclusion that it may be possible to introduce some (but not all) of the solutions that Nivek passionately advocates for the peace settlement of the Caribbean, namely to let the Dutch annex some Entente colonies, IF America would be somehow too distracted to enforce a strict interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine.

The butterfly that I mean to use (which still fulfills the overall story goal of having an expansionist, imperialist America) is to let America indeed get heavily involved in Mexico. Without intervention in WWI, the punitive Mexican Expedition against Pancho Villa escalates to a full-fledged war between Mexico and the USA. It leads to US annexation of northern Mexico and a US protectorate over the rest of Mexico, as well as Panama, much like the ongoing ones over Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua.

This makes Washington too busy to make radical opposition to some Entente Caribbean colonies going to the Dutch. Namely Netherlands annexes French Caribbean territories. If this solution is adopted, Britain is likely able to keep most of its Caribbean colonies (this round...).

Tentatively, I would favor a partition solution for British Guyana, where Netherlands gets the area east of the Essequibo river and Venezuela (sponsored by America) annexes the rest (which had been a long-standing Venezuelan claim). Since the area had been the object of dispute in a US-UK international crisis in 1894-95, it stands to reason that America would apply influence in fvaor of this solution.

As a butterfly of these developments, America gets somewhat more expansionst in the Caribbean, which leads to establishment of US protectorate in Panama, and, during the 1920s, annexation of Cuba (and maybe the Dominican Republic as well, although owing to racial issues, this is perhaps more likely to happen later).
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
Time for another revision of the scenario. :D

Central Powers: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Turkey, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Romania, Sweden, Spain.

Entente: Britain, France, Russia, Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro, Japan, Portugal, Ethiopia.

Neutrals: Denmark, Greece, Norway, USA, South America, China.

America is kept bound to neutrality by a) Germany feeling close enough to victory that it stops using unrestricted submarine when the USA complains about it in 1915 and b) the number of neutrals that join the CP. This nullifies the efforts of the pro-British lobbies and cowes Wilson in sticking to neutrality. When France and Russia collapse, America is eager to have trade with continental Europe restarted and hence accepts renewed use of USW in order to end the British blockade. As a result of its neutrality in the European conflict, the USA becomes instead heavily involved in a Mexican one when the punitive expedition against Pancho Villa escalates into war between USA and Mexico.

PoD1: Italy bargains its belligerance for the CP in exchange for Trento and Gorizia-Gradisca from Austria, as well as a guarantee for getting Nice, Savoy, Corsica, Tunisia from France, and a sizable part of Entente colonies at the peace table. It enters the war in spring 1915.

PoD2: the commander of the Baltic Russian Fleet is not recalled in time and attacks the Swedish fleet on his own initiatve, pushing Sweden to join the CP in 1914.

Peace treaty:

Japan (colonies): gains German Pacific possessions, northern Sakhalin.

Germany (Europe): annexes Luxemburg, Briey, Longwy, Belfort, Nancy, the western slopes of the Vosges, and a slice of Belgian Luxemburg (the Arlon area). Protectorate over the Unified Baltic Duchy, Finland, Belarus, Ukraine (minus the Kharkov and Donets areas), (de facto) Poland.

Germany (colonies): recovers Cameroon (1911-1916 borders), Tanganyika, Namibia, and Tsingtao. Gains Indochina, Singapore, French Morocco, Belgian Congo, Ubangi-Shari, Benin, Middle Congo, Gabon, Angola, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Uganda, northern Mozambique, Walvis Bay, and some minor adjustments to the north of Togo. Buys Equatorial Guinea.
Italy (Europe): annexes Malta, Nice, Savoy, Corsica, and the western slopes of the Alps. Protectorate over Albania, Montenegro, (de facto) Greece.

Italy (colonies): recovers Libya, Eritrea, and Somalia. Gains Tunisia, Djibouti, Chad, Ivory Coast, central-southern Sudan, Ethiopia, Somaliland, Kenya, central-southern Mozambique, Siam, and Malaya.

Austria-Hungary (Europe): annexes Serbia. Gains (nominal) protectorate over Poland, (real) protectorate over Romania (which gains Bessarabia).*

Ottoman Empire (Europe): annexes Cyprus.

Ottoman Empire (Middle East): recovers 1914 borders plus Russian Armenia, Russian Azerbaijan, Khuzestan, Persian Azerbaijan, Egypt, northern Sudan, the Arabian Peninsula. Gains (de facto) protectorate over Persia.

Bulgaria (Europe): keeps/recovers southern Dobruja and western Thrace, annexes Vardar Macedonia.

Netherlands (Europe): annexes Flanders and French Flanders.

Netherlands (colonies): gains British Borneo, Brunei, eastern New Guinea, East Timor, Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, and eastern British Guyana (the western portion is awarded to Venezuela, sponsored by the USA).

Spain (Europe): annexes Gibraltar, Roussillon, French Basque Country, Portugal.

Spain (colonies): gains Guinea-Bissau, Macao, sells Equatorial Africa to Germany.

America: annexes the Mexican states of Baja, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, New Leon, Tamaulipas, Sinaloa, Durango, San Louis Potosi, and Zacatecas. Protectorate over Mexico, Cuba**, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Panama.

France: keeps Algeria, most of West French Africa (Mauritania, Mali, Upper Volta, Niger, Senegal, Guinea), and Madagascar.

Russia: keeps eastern Ukraine, northern Caucasus, and Central Asia.

South Africa: gains Southern Rhodesia, Bechuanaland, Basutoland, and Swaziland.

French possessions in China are split between Germany and Italy.

British and French Pacific islands are split between Germany, Italy, and Netherlands.

Besides the territorial losses, France gets a harsh peace treaty: war reparations equivalent to some 80 billion GM are imposed on them. Their army is limited to 125,000 professional soldiers and officers (maximum 100,000 in the mainland at any time), conscription is forbidden, and the French aren’t allowed to posses heavy artillery, chemical weapons, tanks, armored cars, and military aircraft. Furthermore, a demilitarized zone of 100 km is established in French territory on the borders with Germany and Italy. The French navy is forbidden to own capital ships and submarines.

Russia is not subject to reparations or military limitations due to the international pariah status of the Bolshevik regime.

The peace treaty declares that the war's responsibility lies into Panslav terrorism and aggressive French-Russian revanchism and imperialism.

Britain and Japan pay no reparations and suffer no military limitations.

Britain makes a pledge not to interfere with the territorial or political settlement of continental Europe or CP colonial empires, the CPs pledge to respect the security of the British Empire.

Belgium loses Flanders and is forbidden to build fortresses on its territory or to enter any political-economic union or military alliance with France without the assent of the Central Powers, and its neutrality is rescinded.

British and French shares of the Suez Canal are seized and redistributed among Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire.

* In 1927 Austria-Hungary suffers a fatal constitutional crisis as a result of a failed Ausgleich renewal due to growing political antagonism between Austrian Pan-Germans and Magyar nationalists. The crisis is worsened by the poor leadership of Regent Empress Zita, left in charge by the untimely death of her husband and elder children. The A-H union collapses and the old empire is partitioned. Germany annexes Austria, the Sudetenland, and Slovenia. Czechia becomes an independent state in a confederal union with Germany. Italy annexes Istria and western Dalmatia. Hungary becomes independent and keeps its traditional territories. Croatia becomes independent and annexes Bosnia and eastern Dalmatia. Poland annexes western Galicia. Ukraine annexes eastern Galicia and northern Bukovina. Romania annexes southern Bukovina.

** later annexed by the USA in the 1920s.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Revised 1919 map:

15wm8hh.jpg
 
Top