Atrocities and peace in a CP-victory WWII

[Grey Wolf]

In most wars occupied territory gets returned to the victors by the defeated. I don't see Britain hanging on to Togoland, Kamerun or Tanganyika, especially as the latter still sees an undefeated German army, and if the victory is in 1916, then Kamerun was not that long ago subdued.

The other colonies are more problematic as they are occupied by dominion forces :
- SW Afrika by S Africa
- Tsingtao and the N Pacific islands by Japan
- New Guinea, the Bismarcks, Samoa etc by Australia and New Zealand

I see these as not completely lost, but largely so

- Japan is going to keep Tsingtao but can probably be availed upon to pay compensation, and to return the N Pacific islands

- Australia and New Zealand will keep most of these lands, probably have to pay compensation (cue years of wrangling) and perhaps return Samoa

- If S Africa has control of its own destiny over SW Afrika its decision may be based partly on the basis of future relations with Germany, so a partition is feasible.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Hmm, it seems I was not sufficiently explicit about setting up the parameters of this CP victory scenario.

Therefore:

CPs: Germany, A-H, Italy, Turkey, Bulgaria.

Entente: UK, France, Russia, Serbia, Japan.

Neutrals: America.

Romania, Sweden, and Greece may or may not join the CPs, and Romania may even go Entente, as butterflies go.

I'm not going so far as to force a detailed and specific course of the war, but it is generally assumed that the CPs don't waltz in Paris in 1914 with a successful Plan Schliffen, nor they manage to snatch a last-ditch victory with the Spring 1918 offensives, and then drop dead by the effort. It is aestimated that the CPs win by 1916-17. Not a quick and easy victory, not one of total exhaustion. If Russia doesn't lose all the B-L stuff, at the very least they lose Poland, Bessarabia, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, and if they keep Estonia, they are forced to give compensations in Belarus and Ukraine.

You may have over-exaggerated Russia's losses without the 1917 collapse, unless it is the knock-on from this collapse which triggers the general collapse of the Entente.

I've forgotten everything else I was going to say

Breast Implants
Grey Wolf

 

[kellineil]

In most wars occupied territory gets returned to the victors by the defeated. I don't see Britain hanging on to Togoland, Kamerun or Tanganyika, especially as the latter still sees an undefeated German army, and if the victory is in 1916, then Kamerun was not that long ago subdued.

Not always

Given a 1917 CP defeat of France and Rusia then Britain is quite capable of holding onto it's African gains well into the 1920s, basically as long as it will take the CP to build a naval force able to realistically threaten the RN.

That's the killer, Britain can make it so expensive for the CP to regain those colonies that they've taken that in all probability the victorious CP would still be ripped apart by revolutions which isn't in the best interests of the governing regimes

Britain might not be able to win but they can sure as hell ensure that the CP victory is very hollow indeed. That ability is power and rest assured any British government in this timeline will use it.

To force Britain to give up these colonies would not constitute a lenient peace which is the premise of this thread.

On the other hand if Germany accepted the loss of these colonies to Britain they can ensure that they don't have to pay the price of taking them back, make it more likely that Britain will be friendly in the future and to top it all off pick up a lot of (more) valuable colonies from France, Belgium and Portugal.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I don't agree - a Britain with its allies defeated is still a defeated Britain. Their forces aren't going to be able to sustain the fight in France on their own, so they will either have to withdraw and be transported home, or more likely negotiate an Armistice themselves. Germany is going to say "return my colonies" and Britain is going to say "yes ok" because why on Earth is Britain going to be so desperate to hang onto them ?

The British government is also going to be in a state of imminent collapse - its an unstable alliance of half the Liberals and the Tories (presuming we're in 1917 here) and with defeat will come more eminence for the excluded Liberals and the Labour Party, none of whom are going to risk delaying the end of the war over some African colonies

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[kellineil]

I don't agree - a Britain with its allies defeated is still a defeated Britain. Their forces aren't going to be able to sustain the fight in France on their own, so they will either have to withdraw and be transported home, or more likely negotiate an Armistice themselves. Germany is going to say "return my colonies" and Britain is going to say "yes ok" because why on Earth is Britain going to be so desperate to hang onto them ?

The British government is also going to be in a state of imminent collapse - its an unstable alliance of half the Liberals and the Tories (presuming we're in 1917 here) and with defeat will come more eminence for the excluded Liberals and the Labour Party, none of whom are going to risk delaying the end of the war over some African colonies

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

If the CP wanted to inflict a harsh defeat then they could indeed do this eventually but it's not going to be easy. Even with it's allies knocked out Britain still has the capacity to destroy everything it's taken which is a significant power

Also, the OP stated that Britain got a lenient peace:

(hereby assumed that Britain would have got a lenient peace, so it would have made its peace with the CP hegemony soon after WWI)

This can be better fulfilled by Britain holding onto some of it's African gains, mainly the less important (to the Germans) ones

As for the other gains that Britain gets in the discussed scenario, these all come from its defeated allies and can be thought of as a way to bribe Britain into not interferring in the new continental order

 

[Eurofed]

You may have over-exaggerated Russia's losses without the 1917 collapse, unless it is the knock-on from this collapse which triggers the general collapse of the Entente.

This is more or less what I assume, yes. CP Italy ripples into accelerating the schedule of Russian collapse by a year or so, six months at the very least. Not to mention the gangbang effect of neutrals with ambitions on Russian stuff deciding to share the fun. I did not made it an explicit prerequisite of the scenario, but I am fully expecting that either Romania, Sweden, or both decide they want a share of the Russian pie.

Moreover, after 2-3 years of total war, I really cannot see the CPs asking nothing less from defeated Russia than the pre-Napoleonic borders, plus the Baltic. This is assuming, as IBC suggested, that ITTL the post-revolutionary government may be bright enough to accept the first B-L offer.

 

[Grey Wolf]

This is more or less what I assume, yes. CP Italy ripples into accelerating the schedule of Russian collapse by a year or so, six months at the very least. Not to mention the gangbang effect of neutrals with ambitions on Russian stuff deciding to share the fun. I did not made it an explicit prerequisite of the scenario, but I am fully expecting that either Romania, Sweden, or both decide they want a share of the Russian pie.

Moreover, after 2-3 years of total war, I really cannot see the CPs asking nothing less from defeated Russia than the pre-Napoleonic borders, plus the Baltic.

Ah yes, apple orgies, I had forgotten about Italy !

At the least that is going to release a load of Austrian forces, and some quality German ones, for the East.

It may end up tying up only the same number or so of Entente troops as were sent there after Caporetto in OTL, on the border with France here. But Italy's entry is going to revolutionise the naval position, especially if Italy can get up the gumption to try some offensive actions with its battlefleet

Salonika may end up having to be evacuated for example

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Eurofed]

At the least that is going to release a load of Austrian forces, and some quality German ones, for the East.

Italy is also going to have many more troops than they can fit on the Alps front or use to defend their coasts. They may get sent to Germany, and free more German troops for the East, or go to East themselves. Almost surely, they send an expeditionary corps to encircle Serbia, and ensure that all of its army gets annihilated. The Balkans shall be a CP playground.

It may end up tying up only the same number or so of Entente troops as were sent there after Caporetto in OTL, on the border with France here.

Not really so. The Franco-Italian border was much less well fortified than the Austro-Italian one in 1914, so the French shall need rather more troops to man it than what you imply here. A conservative estimate tells that the French would need to deploy 20-25% of their Western Front manpower just to cover the Alps. The French shall very soon be starved for soldiers, especially if some of their gung-ho idiot officers like Nivelle goes for some "elan" offensives, to try and "relieve" failing Russia. The British shall be forced to deploy more and more of their own troops in the French theater, just to replace French losses.

Salonika may end up having to be evacuated for example

Without the refugee Serbian army, that's sure.

 

[Faeelin]

Not more "irrelevant" than before 1914, or in 1914/15. The mindset to leave the management of war to those who could apparently handle it best is understandable in this apocalyptic struggle. See it as a kind of non-codified "Patriot Act".

Hahahaha. "They were doing so well until they surrendered."

Germany is currently run by the Silent Dictatorship of Ludendorff and Hindenburg.

Hrmm. My understanding of Ludendorff's respect for democracy, liberty, and rule of law is probably skewed by his early support for the Nazis and involvement in the Beer Hall putsch.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Italy is also going to have many more troops than they can fit on the Alps front or use to defend their coasts. They may get sent to Germany, and free more German troops for the East, or go to East themselves. Almost surely, they send an expeditionary corps to encircle Serbia, and ensure that all of its army gets annihilated. The Balkans shall be a CP playground.



Not really so. The Franco-Italian border was much less well fortified than the Austro-Italian one in 1914, so the French shall need rather more troops to man it than what you imply here. A conservative estimate tells that the French would need to deploy 20-25% of their Western Front manpower just to cover the Alps. The French shall very soon be starved for soldiers, especially if some of their gung-ho idiot officers like Nivelle goes for some "elan" offensives, to try and "relieve" failing Russia. The British shall be forced to deploy more and more of their own troops in the French theater, just to replace French losses.



Without the refugee Serbian army, that's sure.

Well, if Italy has already entered the war when the Dardanelles are evacuated then there won't BE a Salonika, though to help the Serbs there may be some sort of operation off the Albania coast, or even a landing in Albania instead

If the latter, then I guess Sarrail's French troops end up there fighting the Italians, but if there is an evacuation ONLY then these French troops would be available for use within France

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[shillinger]

@shillinger

Notice that Saladan asked these questiones.

Germans might come close to seeing themselves as invincible.

I think only if they wtfpwn France in 1914. before the trench war kicks in. As soon as soldiers start digging trenches, the war will definately not look like the cakewalk of 1940., which made the Germans think of themselves as invincible in WWII.

If the Germans are smart enough NOT TO annex further French border regions (Nancy, Belfort, Briey), Alsace-Lorraine might get written off.

Im actually a bit sceptical about widespread annexations myself. Under German occupation and rule for a few decades, yes. IMO, it would be best for Germany just to annex Luxenburg in the immediate post-war period.

Don't hold your breath about Germany not getting Lorraine. For one thing, the war proved again how much precious econmically and logistically it was.

There are about half a dozen ideas on this site about what would be annexed. I think that annexing large tracts of territory not populated by Germans would prove rather counter-productive. IMO, Luxenburg and Alsace-Lorraine should be the borders of Germany ITTL.

 

[Eurofed]

I think only if they wtfpwn France in 1914. before the trench war kicks in. As soon as soldiers start digging trenches, the war will definately not look like the cakewalk of 1940., which made the Germans think of themselves as invincible in WWII.

True.

Im actually a bit sceptical about widespread annexations myself. Under German occupation and rule for a few decades, yes. IMO, it would be best for Germany just to annex Luxenburg in the immediate post-war period.

Speaking in a general sense about justice, freedom, and European equilibrium, yes. And then Italy would/should limit themselves to Nice-Savoy-Corsica.

OTOH, I can see France getting such a lenient peace in 1914/15. After 2-3 years of fighting in the trenches, the CPs shall be pissed off/greedy to get more, I reckon.

Moreover, as other pointed out, it is assumed that ITTL France is PO enough to go even more ballistic in a generation, despite it has been the third time it gets smacked down for its nationalistic hubris, and it should have learned the lesson by now. Is the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, Nice-Savoy-Corsica, all the good parts of the colonial empire, and a bunch of reparations going to be enough to motivate fascist-ballistic ?

 

[shillinger]

Moreover, as other pointed out, it is assumed that ITTL France is PO enough to go even more ballistic in a generation, despite it has been the third time it gets smacked down for its nationalistic hubris, and it should have learned the lesson by now. Is the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, Nice-Savoy-Corsica, all the good parts of the colonial empire, and a bunch of reparations going to be enough to motivate fascist-ballistic ?

Make a hard enough peace when it concerns reparations, millitary, colonies, economy... and viola!

You could take some territories like Brey-Longwy and Belfort, but not entire Lorraine and Southern Belgium. France then wouldnt have the means to start a war, which is the point here.

EDIT: You could also give Germany occupation rights of French industrial areas, sth similar to Saar, and a huge demilitarised zone.

 

[Cornelius]

Is the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, Nice-Savoy-Corsica, all the good parts of the colonial empire, and a bunch of reparations going to be enough to motivate fascist-ballistic ?

Maybe. It would mainly depend on how exactly France got beaten. If, for example, France have to sue for peace because her economy is collapsing and not for a military defeat, the returning troops could develop the idea of having been "betrayed" by the politicians.

If Britain get a milder peace (something that could be necessary for the CP), the french would surely put the blame on them, too.

To err is human, to blame someone else even more.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

A common assumption (also eagerly made by yours truly) is that a CP victory TL (hereby defined for the sake of this discussion to be caused at least by Italy in the CPs and USA out of the war) is going to produce a rather more utopian 20th century than OTL. The CPs becoming socialdemocratic liberal constitutional monarchies, creating an early EU, no Hitler, perhaps no or a contained Lenin-Stalin, the stuff. Another common assumption is that France and/or Russia are going to switch nasty, seek a rematch and cause a *WWII. Well, I was wondering, if all of this be the case, how much of OTL 1930s-1940s bad stuff would we really miss ?

Let's assume that indeed things for the CPs go as good as usually assumed. Nonetheless, at some point Russia somehow remains/swings Red/Brown, and France somehow swings Brown (I deem Communist or too early a blatant revanchist France too unlikely, the CPs would intervene and crush it in the bud). The CPs sleep at the helm, and the nasty duo, in an alliance of opportunist convenience with imperialist militarist Japan, unleash WWII. How much of the OTL WWII atrocities would be avoided, and how much would still happen, perhaps with different victims, in this scenario ?

Moreover, let's assume that the CPs still end up victorious in the rematch, perhaps with some serious Anglo assistance (hereby assumed that Britain would have got a lenient peace, so it would have made its peace with the CP hegemony soon after WWI), perhaps on their own efforts alone. What kind of "1945" harsh peace would France and Russia get ?

Having purposely avoided reading all the other posts on this thread accept for the OP, I'll try to dissect it point by point.

First of all, I don't think Germany is magically going to turn into a social democracy with the population dancing around the May pole. Really it is going to be much more difficult to pry power from the hands of the conservative nobility, especially in a victorious war scenario. Conservatism in Germany was well established, especially among the farmers, a group that actively/passively opposed the Communist revolutions across the country in 1918. The army recruited heavily from farmers due to their political reliability pre-war, which AFAIK never really changed even post-war.

Really much depends on the circumstances of the victory and peace. A peace in 1914, 1916, and 1918 are all very different. Basically the industrialists are going to be a major power despite the gains that the SPD is going to make among workers and city dwellers. The warmongers, AKA Ludendorff and people like Max Bauer, were heavily influenced and controlled by big business and if they are at the helm of a victory over the Entente then their influence on post-war Germany is going to mean influence of the industrialists in politics. The military was starting to make important political gains that are going to have troubling implications for the Kaiser and Socialists.

The post-war European landscape will not be happy at all. Germany is going to leverage their position to exploit everyone they can (which changes depending on the circumstances of victory), which is like to further isolate them politically. I'm sure Britain would be more than happy to separate Berlin and Vienna if at all possible. Vienna is going to be in for some hard times, now that the nationalism issue is out of the bag and needs to be resolved. A civil war is in the dual monarchy's future for sure, especially as by the time Karl took the throne the Hungarians demanded a separate army after the war, with no delays (every single officer in Karl's military cabinet during the war secretly voted against it...)

Again, depending on the peace that was created after the war, France may well never get to be a great power again. Even holding on to their colonies, which they will to a greater or lesser degree, Germany will not be slacking with holding down France. Plus, let's not forget the very dour political situation in victorious France IOTL! It is likely to be even worse than historically, as recriminations fly between the socialists and conservatives in France, each of whom considered the other to be traitors by the end of the war historically. Hell, Clemanceau's entire "restrengthening" plan for France in 1917 after the mutiny of the army was to blame everything on the Socialists and arrest their leadership/his political rivals. In a scenario where they lose, this tension is going to boil over and destroy any unity of purpose for some time. Victory will not smooth over the cracks.

Plus there is the issues of destruction of much of their country, massive war loans, and no reparations from Germany. France is going to be too broke to fund any sort of rematch for decades. It will fall far behind Germany financially, population-wise (immigration is likely to fall off if France is not economically productive, further exacerbating the baby gap and leaving more women without partners), industrially, and militarily. No money for tanks, planes, and artillery will actually make any restrictions on their production somewhat helpful.

While it is certainly possible for France to recover, they won't be but a regional power, however strong they become. Russia is not guaranteed to go Communist either; there is the possibility for a constitutional monarchy or Republic depending on when the war ends and the circumstances (ie Brest-Litovsk or not). They are not likely to start a war with Germany/Austria-Hungary after WW1, especially if France is weakened and Britain has retreated into isolation. They will fund, train, and equip rebels though, which is going to make German plans for their Eastern gains very interesting. Of course German anti-partisan warfare might then become quite developed, meaning that tactic might not be as effective in any future war...

Honestly, unless a European war starts, I doubt Japan will be fighting any European power. And honestly I don't see a European rematch happen any time soon after a CP victory. Sure there will be fighting to sort out the aftermath, including in Spain. But Germany will (likely) be so weak as to make her unable to sort out her past foes. A conspiracy of France, Britain, and Russia would need to be formed to make a war happen again, but such a war would likely not be nearly as well tolerated by the US as it was in 1914-memories of the loans, issues from their non-repayment, and the disruption in trade to deal with.

Britain is likely to remain isolated from the continent thanks to bad blood over the peace deal. Though trade is not likely to be completely cut off, it will be reduced, further limiting Britain's markets (which will already be limited by the US stealing their market shares throughout the world while they converted their industry to war purposes). Britain is saddled with massive loans to the US and private firms in their own country. During the war, Britain also took out extra loans for Russia and France because they could get better rates than their allies. But this means that when said allies lose, they are going to default, leaving Britain to hold the empty bag. This is going to create a major obstacle politically in future dealings between the former Entente.

Russia is going to be in probably the most trouble, as it will be unable to get loans from just about anyone, thanks to defaults/civil war. Without having the Americans as an active war ally, interested in making sure Russia doesn't go communist, that source is likely to run dry, especially as the Americans are going to be too concerned with making back the money they already loaned to the Entente. Britain and France won't be able to or willing to make loans to the Russians, which pushes their industrial development that much farther back (no Stalin-level industrialized state here).

On the economic front, Germany is going to be in trouble too. They have made loans to all their allies and have financed the far by printing money (by the end), and are guaranteed to experience significant inflation after the war. Though it won't be as bad as historical, the disruption to global trade, which Germany depends heavily on, will guarantee a bumpy recovery. Though likely buoyed by reparations from foreign powers, unless they can recover their former markets, which in turn will need to recover they former buying power, they are going to experience a major economic downturn. Mitteleuropa is going to be a fantasy, as Central Europe is an economic basket case and the conquered parts of Eastern Europe are devastated by war, requiring aid money instead of being captive markets.

Germany and AH both need open trade to recover. I expect there is going to be a significant depression after the war, which will rival, but not exceed the historical one. Fighting over the messy end to the war is going to continue/start in Eastern Europe and AH. No one is going to be in a place to start a war for some time. When the recovery happens again, thanks to global trade being resumed, the horrifying experiences will be enough to deter anyone from starting it again.

The British don't want anything that will cost them that much money again, especially as the empire is starting to come apart and Japan is on the march. The French are too weak and traumatized to start another war. Even in victory they were very reluctant to fight, here it would be even worse, especially with a much weaker military, no Maginot line, and a weak mechanized/air force to boot (thanks to lack of money). Russia is also likely to have experienced such destruction and financial/developmental setbacks that they will be unable/unwilling to start a war without guarantees of intense aid from stronger powers, which are just not there. Plus there is likely to be an intense distrust of the Western powers after the loss in the war (being the only power to likely lose lots of home territory and feelings of betrayal).

Germany will have top dog status in just about every category (except naval) after the war, which no one power or combination that didn't include the US would want to mess with. Though likely economically pretty weak after the war, eventually the motor would start up much stronger after global trade recovered. AH is going to be a mess that is kept together only through fear of German domination in a loose confederation that will leave most ethnicities bitter, especially the Hungarians, who are likely to receive a severe beat down politically and militarily, as they oppose necessary reforms. The Dual Monarchy is not going to last much beyond the end of the war and will likely be replaced by weak federation that is increasingly dominated by Germany.

Overall, Europe would not be a happy place until the 30's-40's and no one is going to want to/be able upset things again for fear of what is going to happen. Germany would be too strong, but also too committed to cause any trouble. A European "free" market would be put in place, but I doubt it would be similar to the EU. We would miss out on the atrocities of the 2nd world war, but probably still have a Japan-China mess to sort out.

 

[Saladan]

Having purposely avoided reading all the other posts on this thread accept for the OP, I'll try to dissect it point by point.

First of all, I don't think Germany is magically going to turn into a social democracy with the population dancing around the May pole. Really it is going to be much more difficult to pry power from the hands of the conservative nobility, especially in a victorious war scenario. Conservatism in Germany was well established, especially among the farmers, a group that actively/passively opposed the Communist revolutions across the country in 1918. The army recruited heavily from farmers due to their political reliability pre-war, which AFAIK never really changed even post-war.

Really much depends on the circumstances of the victory and peace. A peace in 1914, 1916, and 1918 are all very different. Basically the industrialists are going to be a major power despite the gains that the SPD is going to make among workers and city dwellers. The warmongers, AKA Ludendorff and people like Max Bauer, were heavily influenced and controlled by big business and if they are at the helm of a victory over the Entente then their influence on post-war Germany is going to mean influence of the industrialists in politics. The military was starting to make important political gains that are going to have troubling implications for the Kaiser and Socialists.

The post-war European landscape will not be happy at all. Germany is going to leverage their position to exploit everyone they can (which changes depending on the circumstances of victory), which is like to further isolate them politically. I'm sure Britain would be more than happy to separate Berlin and Vienna if at all possible. Vienna is going to be in for some hard times, now that the nationalism issue is out of the bag and needs to be resolved. A civil war is in the dual monarchy's future for sure, especially as by the time Karl took the throne the Hungarians demanded a separate army after the war, with no delays (every single officer in Karl's military cabinet during the war secretly voted against it...)

Again, depending on the peace that was created after the war, France may well never get to be a great power again. Even holding on to their colonies, which they will to a greater or lesser degree, Germany will not be slacking with holding down France. Plus, let's not forget the very dour political situation in victorious France IOTL! It is likely to be even worse than historically, as recriminations fly between the socialists and conservatives in France, each of whom considered the other to be traitors by the end of the war historically. Hell, Clemanceau's entire "restrengthening" plan for France in 1917 after the mutiny of the army was to blame everything on the Socialists and arrest their leadership/his political rivals. In a scenario where they lose, this tension is going to boil over and destroy any unity of purpose for some time. Victory will not smooth over the cracks.

Plus there is the issues of destruction of much of their country, massive war loans, and no reparations from Germany. France is going to be too broke to fund any sort of rematch for decades. It will fall far behind Germany financially, population-wise (immigration is likely to fall off if France is not economically productive, further exacerbating the baby gap and leaving more women without partners), industrially, and militarily. No money for tanks, planes, and artillery will actually make any restrictions on their production somewhat helpful.

While it is certainly possible for France to recover, they won't be but a regional power, however strong they become. Russia is not guaranteed to go Communist either; there is the possibility for a constitutional monarchy or Republic depending on when the war ends and the circumstances (ie Brest-Litovsk or not). They are not likely to start a war with Germany/Austria-Hungary after WW1, especially if France is weakened and Britain has retreated into isolation. They will fund, train, and equip rebels though, which is going to make German plans for their Eastern gains very interesting. Of course German anti-partisan warfare might then become quite developed, meaning that tactic might not be as effective in any future war...

Honestly, unless a European war starts, I doubt Japan will be fighting any European power. And honestly I don't see a European rematch happen any time soon after a CP victory. Sure there will be fighting to sort out the aftermath, including in Spain. But Germany will (likely) be so weak as to make her unable to sort out her past foes. A conspiracy of France, Britain, and Russia would need to be formed to make a war happen again, but such a war would likely not be nearly as well tolerated by the US as it was in 1914-memories of the loans, issues from their non-repayment, and the disruption in trade to deal with.

Britain is likely to remain isolated from the continent thanks to bad blood over the peace deal. Though trade is not likely to be completely cut off, it will be reduced, further limiting Britain's markets (which will already be limited by the US stealing their market shares throughout the world while they converted their industry to war purposes). Britain is saddled with massive loans to the US and private firms in their own country. During the war, Britain also took out extra loans for Russia and France because they could get better rates than their allies. But this means that when said allies lose, they are going to default, leaving Britain to hold the empty bag. This is going to create a major obstacle politically in future dealings between the former Entente.

Russia is going to be in probably the most trouble, as it will be unable to get loans from just about anyone, thanks to defaults/civil war. Without having the Americans as an active war ally, interested in making sure Russia doesn't go communist, that source is likely to run dry, especially as the Americans are going to be too concerned with making back the money they already loaned to the Entente. Britain and France won't be able to or willing to make loans to the Russians, which pushes their industrial development that much farther back (no Stalin-level industrialized state here).

On the economic front, Germany is going to be in trouble too. They have made loans to all their allies and have financed the far by printing money (by the end), and are guaranteed to experience significant inflation after the war. Though it won't be as bad as historical, the disruption to global trade, which Germany depends heavily on, will guarantee a bumpy recovery. Though likely buoyed by reparations from foreign powers, unless they can recover their former markets, which in turn will need to recover they former buying power, they are going to experience a major economic downturn. Mitteleuropa is going to be a fantasy, as Central Europe is an economic basket case and the conquered parts of Eastern Europe are devastated by war, requiring aid money instead of being captive markets.

Germany and AH both need open trade to recover. I expect there is going to be a significant depression after the war, which will rival, but not exceed the historical one. Fighting over the messy end to the war is going to continue/start in Eastern Europe and AH. No one is going to be in a place to start a war for some time. When the recovery happens again, thanks to global trade being resumed, the horrifying experiences will be enough to deter anyone from starting it again.

The British don't want anything that will cost them that much money again, especially as the empire is starting to come apart and Japan is on the march. The French are too weak and traumatized to start another war. Even in victory they were very reluctant to fight, here it would be even worse, especially with a much weaker military, no Maginot line, and a weak mechanized/air force to boot (thanks to lack of money). Russia is also likely to have experienced such destruction and financial/developmental setbacks that they will be unable/unwilling to start a war without guarantees of intense aid from stronger powers, which are just not there. Plus there is likely to be an intense distrust of the Western powers after the loss in the war (being the only power to likely lose lots of home territory and feelings of betrayal).

Germany will have top dog status in just about every category (except naval) after the war, which no one power or combination that didn't include the US would want to mess with. Though likely economically pretty weak after the war, eventually the motor would start up much stronger after global trade recovered. AH is going to be a mess that is kept together only through fear of German domination in a loose confederation that will leave most ethnicities bitter, especially the Hungarians, who are likely to receive a severe beat down politically and militarily, as they oppose necessary reforms. The Dual Monarchy is not going to last much beyond the end of the war and will likely be replaced by weak federation that is increasingly dominated by Germany.

Overall, Europe would not be a happy place until the 30's-40's and no one is going to want to/be able upset things again for fear of what is going to happen. Germany would be too strong, but also too committed to cause any trouble. A European "free" market would be put in place, but I doubt it would be similar to the EU. We would miss out on the atrocities of the 2nd world war, but probably still have a Japan-China mess to sort out.

Interesting. How do you think the US is going to be in this scenario?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Interesting. How do you think the US is going to be in this scenario?

Isolationist and frustrated with Europe, especially as they are not able to pay back their loans on schedule. France will/may have to pay reparations and Britain is going to have to deal with their own defaulted loans from former allies. Germany will be able to resume trade the quickest, having many necessities that need to be filled and a thirsty population. They will also recover their merchant fleet, which has been sitting in foreign ports waiting for trade to resume.

But the war trade will be cut off at the end of the war, which means a massive down turn in US manufacturing, some of which get picked up by thirsty British and German markets. Trade resumes haltingly, but instability in Europe keeps a full recovery from preventing a depression. France, Italy, Russia, and AH are all wracked with political/violent upheaval, which means Germany and Britain, the two powers best positioned for recovery (though only in relation to the poor situation in the other major states of Europe), are able to resume semi-regular business. Germany is still likely weighed down by their gains, which are likely to be unruly, further requiring scare money to hold down.

Eventually the US will recover, just as the others will when the political instability subsides. Trade will pick up and the ugliness that went before will slowly be forgiven as no one really has the power or desire to restart old conflicts. The new balance of power is confirmed and leaves Central Europe as the center of the continent in all senses, while Britain goes their own way. The US and Germany start up with the trade rivalry again, as Germany gets cut out of markets by the British and US, together as an alliance of common interests, while Germany extends its control over continental Europe.

Ultimately it will be a stunted growth, as Germany is not able to access the world markets to the fullest extent, thanks to the Commonwealth and US penetration of South American markets.

There are several ways this could go, though I don't think Germany would force a conflict over it, and may well be involved in China as an ally of sorts to keep open that market to their industries. Perhaps a Sino-Germany understanding/agreement, especially as Germany is now divested of the South East Asian colonies which would drive them into conflicts of interest with China. It also helps that they didn't really have a history of humiliating China (the Boxer rebellion excluded). Japan could be in a world of trouble if Germany decides to get involved in training/supplying the Chinese forces.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Maybe. It would mainly depend on how exactly France got beaten. If, for example, France have to sue for peace because her economy is collapsing and not for a military defeat, the returning troops could develop the idea of having been "betrayed" by the politicians.

I was thinking it was more likely to have been the case that the soldiers were revolting

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Hörnla]

so much traffic on this side...

@Eurofed:

-On Colonies

I regard any German colonial gains beyond "Mittelafrika" plus one or two bases on the way (Dakar? Agadir?) as rather unlikely - overstretch is just around the corner and frankly, Germany didn't do that well in Africa durin the war.
I cannot remember Indochina ever being discussed (maybe in the Alldeutsche Verband - but for them, Germany was a globe).

Taking Belgian-Congo, some of the Portuguese colonies plus some bases more already would more than double Germany's colonial realm. I doubt it could stomach more.

Also, I cannot see a victorious Germany giving up Tanganyka, which didn't even surrender to the British and neither Deutsch-Südwest with ca. 12,000 Germans settling there. Although I have to admit that
I didn't take into account that the latter occupation occured through Dominion forces.

I can rather imagine the British to be compensated with more French possessions and maybe a railway-concession through German East Africa.

Based on how the war went, I could even imagine a peace which is almost status quo ante in
the colonies. Some border corrections in Togo and Cameroon (similar to 1911), Agadir as a German base,
compensation for Tsingtao (e.g. Japan getting Weihawei or Northern Sachalin instead).

"...and Italy too little"

I expect Italy not too gain too much. A CP Italy would have had trouble to keep any colonial
possessions during the war. I think that kellineils assumptions are realistic (given that
the 2nd Marocco is actually Tunis).

Ethipia? Siam? Go and get them! Won't be easy...

----

-On France

You are right, I didn't remember the Italian shopping list. Your scenario really makes
them unable to try again.

If France gets revanchist again, though, it will still be directed primarily against
Germany. Italy is just an upstart, seduced by the evil mistress Germania - if Germany is
beaten, somehow, somewhen, Italy will learn its lesson. It won't work the other way round.


@kellineil:

"and effectively aligns Britain with the new CP hegemony. Same goes for the USA"

I wouldn't go that far. But if the Japanese keep Tsingtao, this could effectively align Germany to the British empire.

----

-On Britain (this also refers to many other posts)

First of all, I consider a status quo ante plus some concessions and gains on France's/Portugal's cost as a "lenient peace".

I agree that Britain would not necessarily fold once France and Russia are beaten. There are two historical experiences which suggest that Britain will hold out for some time, i.e. World War 2 and the Napoleonic Wars.

A lot of it will depend upon if Britain manages to "Dunkerque" its army out of France once the latter surrenders.

Both sides will have a break from the daily slaughter in the trenches. Ressources will be re-directed. The war-economy re-assessed on all sides.

Britain will take some time to assess the situation. Is it like 1802? 1810?
They will demonstrate the Germans that their rule is confined to Europe for the foreseeable future.
They will need an answer if the USA might ever enter the war. If there are possibilities for other coalitions.

It is probable, that after a few months, there will be negotiations. Cool heads would do that. But other courses of events are not impossible

Germany might not be passive either. Can they force Russia to surrender large parts of its navy? Can they try to bait France into switching sides (Suez, Sudan, Nigeria e.a., Quebec?...there are countless British possessions who might make sense for Paris to own). What
about Japan?


@Faeelin:

Thank you for your post. It amused me a lot.

"They were doing so well until they surrendered."

Well, that was at least the image they successfully projected. I am not calling the German political class of the time (or most times including my own) particuarly intelligent and insightful. They expected H&L to deliver victory.

"Hrmm. My understanding of Ludendorff's respect for democracy, liberty, and rule of law is probably skewed by his early support for the Nazis and involvement in the Beer Hall putsch."

It is not as if I wanted to present Ludendorff as a supporter of democracy. He never was.
But - he was not in the position to be called dictator (unless you mean the occupied east in Ober-Ost) and neither where H&L in the position to change the German constitution on their own account.

His downfall was steep and he was a rogue figure in German policies of the 1920s. There is speculation from what point on Ludendorff could have been called mentally unstable (though you could in that time be mentally unstable and still become Führer & Reichskanzler).


@shillinger

"As soon as soldiers start digging trenches, the war will definately not look like the cakewalk of 1940., which made the Germans think of themselves as invincible in WWII."

True. But in the long run it will seem so - to those who never had to endure the trenches, to schoolchildren. 1870/71 was no fun either - but the generation of 1914 thought it had been a quick and easy victory.

"IMO, it would be best for Germany just to annex Luxenburg in the immediate post-war period."

Germany hardly ever knew best what is best for her, I am afraid.

@wiking

What is a "social democracy" for you?

I am not talking about welfarian utopia, but about slight changes in the handling and outlook of the constitution which would have turned the German Reich into a different direction. These changes were expected to occur sooner or later, and the parties which supported it could muster the votes of 75% of the German population - this doesn't just
mean the working class and its party.

Farmers as well as aristocrats will lose out in the long run. Their demographic development will continue their decline of power.

You could be right about German's political development, but neither course is pre-
destined.

"The army recruited heavily from farmers due to their political reliability pre-war, which AFAIK never really changed even post-war."

This is a fact. The army could afford it, hardly needing to recruit 50% of a generation and from 1918 on being confined to 100,000 OTL. Still, the German Army didn't shoot at workers considerably more often than other contemporary armies.

"Clemanceau's entire "restrengthening" plan for France in 1917 after the mutiny of the army was to blame everything on the Socialists and arrest their leadership/his political rivals."

Gee! He must have nicked this plan from Ludendorff!

"A European "free" market would be put in place, but I doubt it would be similar to the EU."

That is true. An early EU is wishful thinking - BUT as OTL 1920s saw the evolution of European thinking, so will this timeline - with the difference that there already are some kinds of institutions.

Overall, especially economically, a very good analysis, in my humble opinion.

 

[Eurofed]

@Horla:

Well, disregarding my previous comment, I can see Italy reducing its shopping list on French mainland stuff to the really non-negotiable irredentist stuff (Nice, Savoy, Corsica, Tunisia) and otherwise slightly adjusting the Alps border to get control of the watershed. Otherwise, my basic assumption on the peace table is that Italy would strive to get roughly the same amount of French mainland and colonial stuff that Germany gets, no more, no less (also because Germany is getting substantial gains from Russia, too, all Italian booty must come from France). If Germany claims Lorraine and eastern Walloonia, Italy shall claim the Riviera and eastern Dauphine, if it doesn't, Italy shall stick to its basic irredentist list (Germany already gets it with Alsace-Lorraine and Luxemburg).

Of course, even after this round, France shall keep Germany as the main focus of its revanchist hatred, there cannot be any doubt about this. It's simply that they shall now extend a great deal of that hatred to Italy, too, for robbing other "sacred" French territory.

I think that by losing just the basic mainland package (A-L, Nice-Savoy-Corsica), they ought not to have too difficulties for a rematch. I'm not even so convinced that losing Lorraine and Riviera would screw economically so much that they cannot place the secondary aggressor Fascist Italy like role that I picture for them.

Concerning the colonies, my list is built on claiming locations that Germany expressed interest for before the war (Morocco, French and Belgian Congo, Gabon, Angola). The other stuff (Guinea, Ivory Coast, Indochina) comes as compensation for trading pre-war German colonies to Britain and Japan and increased appetites during the war, that gets vented on colonies especially if they are lenient on French and Russian mainland territories.

As it concerns Italy, I'm absolutely certain that they would not accept to remain too far behind Germany as colonial gains go, so Tunisia and Dijbouti cannot suffice. They can and would certainly go in Ethiopia (and they shall have any more difficulty than in 1935-36 to do so, Italian army swelled massively during WWI, and it had gained much colonial experience in Libya, it shall not be nothing like 1896), but since they have to conquer it with their own efforts, it cannot suffice, either. Mozambico builds on their eastern Africa strategic expansion vector, so it is an obvious choice. I think they would claim Siam only if Germany claims Indochina.

About the issue of whether Germany would trade Namibia and Tanganyka for other colonies, I'm agnostic on the issue, but I'm slightly in favor of the swapping. Frankly, I've trouble seeing South Africa ever giving Namibia back, and Tanganyka is too useful to Britain for the Cape-Cairo railway. At the very most, I see Tanganyka getting partitioned, with Britain getting all the interior to build its railway, and Germany keeping the coast.

Frankly, it matters very little what Germany and Italy were able to keep of their colonies during the war, everything that matters is the final outcome of the war.

This settlement in fact gives something to everyone who matters in the immediate future.

Indeed, that's why it can a basis for future stable peace, at least as it concerns Britain and the CPs.

Granted France and Portugal aren't going to be happy about Britain benefiting from their defeat but what can they do?

Nothing, but then again, France is the Entente member that the CPs have least reason to be lenient with, for various reasons. Portugal, as a weak British satellite and Entente cobelligerant with valuable colonies, is paying the bill for defeat in the place of Britain.

Of course this builds up grudges for the future and effectively aligns Britain with the new CP hegemony. Same goes for the USA

Wel, if they are any smart, the CP diplomats need to do everything they can do to put a wedge between the Anglosphere and France-Russia. Once the CP hegemony becomes the continental status quo and resumes normal economic relatrions with the Anglosphere, if they get treated well, UK and USA shall become supportive of it. Britain shall eventually realize that they don't really need a divided continent to have profitable trade with it, or be secure in their Empire, and the balance of power is an outmoded concept.

The CP giving a blanket guarantee in to the integrity of the British Empire could precipetate a future war - for instance if Japan tries to take over some of Britains far eastern possessions

Therefore consolidating the budding partnership between the CP hegemony and the British Empire.

One query though: I find it unlikely that Italy would get British Somaliland in the peace settlement unless they had managed to seize it during the war, and if they did they would likely have to give something up in return

True. I may consider to drop it from the list. Otherwise, do you think that Britain could ever consider to sell it, or deem it part of the package swap Britain has with Germany ? I honestly cannot tell what Italy could trade for it. Not Mozambico, it would be too unbalanced a trade.