British-German cold war post CP victory

[Kongzilla]

I was fascinated by the Idea of a cold war between a victorious German Empire and the British Empire in the aftermath of the First World war. I was thinking that the war still goes on until 1918 but with no American boots on the ground so Germany manages to eek out a victory. France is put under a lot of strain by being forced to pay back the Germans and the Americans. America goes back into isolationism. And I'm not sure what else.


Some of the Flashpoints would include:

Warlord Russia
Expansionist Ottomans
Anti-German uprisings in Middle Africa
A crumbling Austro-Hungarian empire
British India
A very angry France
Expansionist Japan

and some others. Not sure how it could work but it seemed like a cool Idea in my head.

 

[Riain]

I imagine a sort of Anglo-French quasi superpower in a CP victory where Germany is the continental hegemon. France would guarantee British food supplies and Britain grantee French coal and iron supplies so that the WW1 situation would not occur again.

 

[Mikestone8]

I imagine a sort of Anglo-French quasi superpower in a CP victory where Germany is the continental hegemon. France would guarantee British food supplies and Britain grantee French coal and iron supplies so that the WW1 situation would not occur again.

How can France guarantee British food supplies? In 1917/18 she was dependent on imports - chiefly from the US

As for coal and iron, that was precisely the position during WW1 (France's main ironfield at Briey was in German hands, and would presumably have been retained by a victorious Germany) so can hardly be said tyo "prevent the WW1 om occuring"..

 

[Riain]

I'd suggest that food production could be a French strategic resource, and that France could make a firm commitment to supply British food needs in time of war (at the expense of a division or two) when convoys and combat losses to shipping strangle food imports. The mirror would be that coal and iron could be a British strategic resource and Britain could make a firm commitment to supply French coal and iron needs (at the expense of a naval task force) when enemy action curtails production in the best areas of France. In the scenario of WW1 I don't think Germany could stop such strategic trade across the short distances of the English Channel. Such a realignment wouldn't happen overnight, but in a decade or two of cold war with Greater Germany I could envisage it could occur.

 

[Gregg]

France would be under German control in a CP victory scenario - forced into a German-dominated customs union from which Britain is excluded (which is going to hurt the British economy a lot).

But yes, there would be an Anglo-German Cold War moving towards a second World War. The Kaiser won't be satisfied in the long-term with control of Europe and the Mittelafrika, he'll have designs on dominating the seas, expanding into the remaining non-German bits of Africa, and ultimately becoming the sole global super-power. And a Britain that didn't win WWI is going to take a deeply authoritarian and reaction turn, beset by stabbed-in-the-back fantasies, a desire for revenge and dreams of ultimately becoming the sole global super-power.

 

[Mikestone8]

I'd suggest that food production could be a French strategic resource, and that France could make a firm commitment to supply British food needs in time of war (at the expense of a division or two) when convoys and combat losses to shipping strangle food imports. The mirror would be that coal and iron could be a British strategic resource and Britain could make a firm commitment to supply French coal and iron needs (at the expense of a naval task force) when enemy action curtails production in the best areas of France. In the scenario of WW1 I don't think Germany could stop such strategic trade across the short distances of the English Channel. Such a realignment wouldn't happen overnight, but in a decade or two of cold war with Greater Germany I could envisage it could occur.

My point was that France may be able to feed herself in peacetime, but not in wartime - too many peasant families (and their horses) taken away to the front. Hence her dependence on American aid in the latter part of WW1. And clearly, if she cannot feed herself in wartime, she won't have any surplus to send to Britain. FTM, if the RN is able to keep the sea routes open, Britain doesn't need French food as she can import directly from the Americas and elsewhere.

I don't really understand the bit about "a division or two". Presumably a division or two's worth of Frenchmen would eat the same amount of food whether they were in uniform or not. Their return to their farms would increase production somewhat, but hardly enough to make more than a marginal difference.

In any case, all this presupposes that France is still a British ally. A defeated France, wholly or partly under German occupation, may well not be.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

France would be under German control in a CP victory scenario - forced into a German-dominated customs union from which Britain is excluded (which is going to hurt the British economy a lot).

But yes, there would be an Anglo-German Cold War moving towards a second World War. The Kaiser won't be satisfied in the long-term with control of Europe and the Mittelafrika, he'll have designs on dominating the seas, expanding into the remaining non-German bits of Africa, and ultimately becoming the sole global super-power. And a Britain that didn't win WWI is going to take a deeply authoritarian and reaction turn, beset by stabbed-in-the-back fantasies, a desire for revenge and dreams of ultimately becoming the sole global super-power.

You are seriously overestimating the desires AND influence of the Kaiser in decision making. Especially by 1917 he was a figurehead.
The rest of Africa isn't economically worthwhile compared to Belgian Congo, which Germany would have (oil in Africa won't be discovered for a while yet). Germany would have her economically viable block in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, so wouldn't require or want anything more, because holding it down is going to take all of her energy.
Beyond that the Japanese are likely to remain allied to Britain, which is going to let them invade China as per OTL. China will be a major German market/military protege, as per OTL, so Asia might end up being the flashpoint between Germany and Britain or at least the playground for their Cold War, with both sides supplying/training/trading with their favored nation.

 

[Kongzilla]

Beyond that the Japanese are likely to remain allied to Britain, which is going to let them invade China as per OTL. China will be a major German market/military protege, as per OTL, so Asia might end up being the flashpoint between Germany and Britain or at least the playground for their Cold War, with both sides supplying/training/trading with their favored nation.

That's what I was thinking.

 

[Tom_B]

Continuation of Politics

Define victory. I have trouble seeing the Germans taking Paris in 1918. If we have them take Amiens and Hazebrouck (and maybe Rheims as well) and hold them, I could see a peace with Germany getting Luxembourg, Longwy, Briey, a small Vosges border adjustment and maybe a piece of Belgium. Also some colonial gains (but not Indochina) and reparations.

The usual cliché here is a massive superdreadnought naval race. I think there will be some of that but not as much as often fantasized.

The issue that often gets neglected in this discussion is British politics. The coalition between DLG and the Tories that dominated the postwar is not going to happen. I see polarization instead with a lot of finger pointing. Many of the wartime figures will be discredited. Probably Baldwin emerges earlier as a fresh face amongst the Tories. While the short term impetus is stronger on the Right I would see a swing to the Left before 1930. It is quite possible that a Labour government would find much to admire in an SPD dominated Germany.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Define victory. I have trouble seeing the Germans taking Paris in 1918. If we have them take Amiens and Hazebrouck (and maybe Rheims as well) and hold them, I could see a peace with Germany getting Luxembourg, Longwy, Briey, a small Vosges border adjustment and maybe a piece of Belgium. Also some colonial gains (but not Indochina) and reparations.

The usual cliché here is a massive superdreadnought naval race. I think there will be some of that but not as much as often fantasized.

The issue that often gets neglected in this discussion is British politics. The coalition between DLG and the Tories that dominated the postwar is not going to happen. I see polarization instead with a lot of finger pointing. Many of the wartime figures will be discredited. Probably Baldwin emerges earlier as a fresh face amongst the Tories. While the short term impetus is stronger on the Right I would see a swing to the Left before 1930. It is quite possible that a Labour government would find much to admire in an SPD dominated Germany.

Assuming the SPD would be in charge. The conservative parties unified into the Fatherland Party by the end of the war, so with their icon, Ludendorff, having subordinated the Monarchy and winning the war, they will probably ride the postwar victory high to power for some time. I'm not saying they would be Nazi-esque, but would be very much opposite British Labour. The question is how long would that middle class coalition last? As it was the SPD had a plurality in 1914 of seats, but the conservatives still outnumbered them despite being fractured. Here though the Mittelstand would subordinate the upper AND lower classes politically.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/fatherlandparty.htm
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Vaterlandspartei

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...rty_of_Germany#Pre-republic_1863.E2.80.931918
Plus the SPD split in 1917, so was weakened by infighting during the war between those that were against it, they eventually became the Spartakists and would be discredited here if Germany wins, and those that were more institutionalists, who would retain some influence, albeit weakened in the critical period post war. So they would be on the outside looking in, but the DVLP would overreach post war while the SPD and USPD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany) would IMHO eventually heal their rift in the 1920s to fight back against the insane right wing of German politics, which made themselves pretty unpopular IOTL by the end of the war (though IOTL they lost, so it would be a different scenario here....for a time).

So the peace would piss off the British heavily, without a doubt; by the time the German Center and Left regain power, I doubt the British Labour party would be very full of 'socialist brotherhood' considering the SPD voted for the war and supported it the whole time.

 

[Garrison]

The OP might make sense if you assume a quick CP victory. In that case Britain hasn't bankrupted itself bankrolling its allies. That also probably means a US disinterested in Europe and largely content to look to Latin America and the Pacific for economic growth as the British Empire will be far stronger and of course Germany will dominate Continental trade and industry.

Of course eventually all three are going to compete with one another but its likely to be clash of economic opportunities rather than ideologies.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The OP might make sense if you assume a quick CP victory. In that case Britain hasn't bankrupted itself bankrolling its allies. That also probably means a US disinterested in Europe and largely content to look to Latin America and the Pacific for economic growth as the British Empire will be far stronger and of course Germany will dominate Continental trade and industry.

Of course eventually all three are going to compete with one another but its likely to be clash of economic opportunities rather than ideologies.

That is a good point; Britain will be pretty hard hit by a 1918 loss, especially if France is forced to give up territory, not get reparations, and has to rebuild its devastated country on its own. Russia, France, and Italy won't be paying back all the loans that they took on from Britain quickly if at all. Germany may be the only power, assuming it gets the very profitable Congo from Belgium, that has the power to compete. Compete it will, but with a crumbling empire and being economically weakened Britain unable to match the new 'Mitteleuropa, Mittelafrika, and Naher Osten' block that will be competing in the Far East with Japan and the US, while competing with the US in Latin America and whatever Russia turns into in the East. Britain will likely be a bit player in the new world order.

 

[TheIdiot]

The real super cliché is the always crumbling A-H.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The real super cliché is the always crumbling A-H.

Indeed. Someone said in another thread that with a German win German troops will be in A-H signaling that A-H has major backing and any revolt is not going to end well; knowing that's not an option A-H muddles on for fear of German domination. Ironically A-H might band together to resist German economic and political control post 1918.

Edit:
found it-
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=7475848&postcount=10

BlondieBC:
Now if we are getting to what makes A-H survive, we have to look at what broke it. The had a disaster in Galicia in 1914 (Wiking Conrad turns East is example of fixing), Italy entered war in 1915, disaster in Galicia in 1916, and followed by food crisis in late 1918. It took all of these items to break the empire. You can write a CP TL with all of these events, and then A-H is doomed to fail. Go to the other end with Wiking's idea, and it is almost certain to survive. The key is Germany did not want to annex Austria, so Germany wants Austria-Hungary to survive. So unless Germany is almost exhausted, it will prevent immediate breakup after the war. By force if necessary. I looked at this a lot for my TL, and concluded with a stronger German win, it is very, very likely A-H muddles on. All it took was stationing enough German divisions in Hungary (hint, they are there anyway IOTL) to "persuade" the Hungarian nobles they can't win a civil war. And then you get another 50 year compromise. And it is the German pattern. IOTL, they intentionally put units in Slovenia and Croatia that were not needed militarily as a symbol of which side Germany would come down on. Small units have big impact when backup by worlds best Army. Same idea as USA troops in Korea.

 

[Monty Burns]

That is a good point; Britain will be pretty hard hit by a 1918 loss, especially if France is forced to give up territory, not get reparations, and has to rebuild its devastated country on its own. Russia, France, and Italy won't be paying back all the loans that they took on from Britain quickly if at all. Germany may be the only power, assuming it gets the very profitable Congo from Belgium, that has the power to compete. Compete it will, but with a crumbling empire and being economically weakened Britain unable to match the new 'Mitteleuropa, Mittelafrika, and Naher Osten' block that will be competing in the Far East with Japan and the US, while competing with the US in Latin America and whatever Russia turns into in the East. Britain will likely be a bit player in the new world order.

Germany will also be hard-hit with a 1918 victory. It won't be over for the Germans, they'd likely engage in colonial wars with their new subjects and in the East. An Empire is expensive to support. By no means will Britain be forced to pay significant amounts of money to Germany, and France, indebted and destroyed, cannot pay the German bill alone. Looting France by occupation is possible - but also costly.

All in all, WWI cannot end in 1918 with Germany being able to rule the world, build superdreadnoughts at will, and control Europe.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Germany will also be hard-hit with a 1918 victory. It won't be over for the Germans, they'd likely engage in colonial wars with their new subjects and in the East. An Empire is expensive to support. By no means will Britain be forced to pay significant amounts of money to Germany, and France, indebted and destroyed, cannot pay the German bill alone. Looting France by occupation is possible - but also costly.

All in all, WWI cannot end in 1918 with Germany being able to rule the world, build superdreadnoughts at will, and control Europe.

Germany will owe money...to herself. She borrowed internally and printed money to pay for the war, though there was some trading with neutrals that drew down her foreign exchange stocks. Still, Germany was far better off financially, because she owed money almost exclusively internally, lent far less to her allies than Britain did, AND, perhaps most importantly, had a huge manufacturing base that Britain did not.

Britain's wealth was primarily based on her financial sector in 1914, but she had lent out her money to her allies and borrowed heavily from the US, literally mortgaging her gold stocks, on which the currency was based, to US private banks that held the entire stock in their vaults.

Plus Germany built up a major new industry for the post war world: nitrates. Because of nitrate fixing to get around the lack of imports from Chile, Germany became the sole supplier in Europe, because Chilean nitrates were too expensive in comparison. Coupled with her irreplaceable industrial goods, especially chemicals, which the world was desperate for during the war, as Germany was the only source, Germany can rebuild her foreign exchange stocks without too much of a delay thanks to being able to sell all of her goods either to her new markets or the world that had been denied them without anyone filling the void. Beyond that Germany also could put off paying her internal creditors if necessary, while feasting on the 1920s boom of Congolese goods that made Belgium rich IOTL.

Also Germany won't lose the patents for inventions that the Allies IOTL harvested from her in 1919 at Versailles, which cost Germany huge income. Germany had the world's second largest merchant shipping fleet which was seized IOTL at Versailles along with huge amounts of other capital investments. Here that won't happen and Germany can continue to focus on exporting industrial goods.

Britain however will have her financial sector depleted and unable to recollect its loans quickly if at all, especially if Germany is squeezing France, Italy, and Russia, which were Britain's debtees. Britain primarily exported finished consumer goods in contrast to Germany's heavy industry, so would find that the US had filled that void in the meantime. With her primary industries weakened and having competition they weren't used to, both Britain and France will be in a bad way post war. They won't be broke or unable to compete, but will not have their pre-war economic strength, while Germany has just grabbed all the things her economy needed, so will have a base to expand on in the 1920s and exceed her 1914 potential by the mid-1920s. I'm not saying Germany will be recovering in 1918 or 1919 or even 1922, but by 1925-6 Germany is going to be relatively stronger than Britain by a wide margin relative to 1914. Its only going to get worse from there. Remember that IOTL 1939 Britain still hadn't even recovered her financial position of 1914.

OTL example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_Kingdom#Interwar_era

The British economy was lackluster in the 1920s, with sharp declines and high unemployment in heavy industry and coal, especially in Scotland and Wales. Exports of coal and steel fell in half by 1939 and the business community was slow to adopt the new labor and management principles coming from the US, such as Fordism, consumer credit, eliminating surplus capacity, designing a more structured management, and using greater economies of scale.[78] For over a century the shipping industry had dominated world trade, but it remained in the doldrums despite various stimulus efforts by the government. With the very sharp decline in world trade after 1929, its condition became critical.[79]

Chancellor of the Exchequer Winston Churchill put Britain back on the gold standard in 1925, which many economists blame for the mediocre performance of the economy. Others point to a variety of factors, including the inflationary effects of the World War and supply-side shocks caused by reduced working hours after the war.[80]

By the late 1920s, economic performance had stabilised, but the overall situation was disappointing, for Britain had clearly fallen behind the United States and other countries as an industrial power.

Germany would top her by a wide margin ITTL and did pre-war IOTL anyway. IOTL post war German industry was purposely hobbled so it couldn't compete with Britain, yet Britain STILL was falling behind. Here it would be worse without Germany being in Civil War, looted, having huge tariffs against her products, having her former cheap supplier of raw materials (Russia) cut off, and mired in war debt she couldn't pay off.

 

[Kongzilla]

Maybe to even it a little bit, Britain seizes Mittelafrika and refuses to let it go and reaps it's own rewards off of it. While Germany has to fight several wars in the pacific to regain colonies from Japan. Russia may be able to pay back it's debts to Britain if they pull a Chiang and flee to siberia with a majority of the Empire's funds. They now don't have to support as large a population and they are now in control of the mineral rich parts of the country.

 

[eliphas8]

Maybe to even it a little bit, Britain seizes Mittelafrika and refuses to let it go and reaps it's own rewards off of it. While Germany has to fight several wars in the pacific to regain colonies from Japan. Russia may be able to pay back it's debts to Britain if they pull a Chiang and flee to siberia with a majority of the Empire's funds. They now don't have to support as large a population and they are now in control of the mineral rich parts of the country.

And whats to stop this new siberian nation being crushed not unlike many of the ones that popped up OTL in the face of the Russian revolution?

 

[The Gunslinger]

Germany will owe money...to herself. She borrowed internally and printed money to pay for the war, though there was some trading with neutrals that drew down her foreign exchange stocks. Still, Germany was far better off financially, because she owed money almost exclusively internally, lent far less to her allies than Britain did, AND, perhaps most importantly, had a huge manufacturing base that Britain did not.

Britain's wealth was primarily based on her financial sector in 1914, but she had lent out her money to her allies and borrowed heavily from the US, literally mortgaging her gold stocks, on which the currency was based, to US private banks that held the entire stock in their vaults.

Plus Germany built up a major new industry for the post war world: nitrates. Because of nitrate fixing to get around the lack of imports from Chile, Germany became the sole supplier in Europe, because Chilean nitrates were too expensive in comparison. Coupled with her irreplaceable industrial goods, especially chemicals, which the world was desperate for during the war, as Germany was the only source, Germany can rebuild her foreign exchange stocks without too much of a delay thanks to being able to sell all of her goods either to her new markets or the world that had been denied them without anyone filling the void. Beyond that Germany also could put off paying her internal creditors if necessary, while feasting on the 1920s boom of Congolese goods that made Belgium rich IOTL.

Also Germany won't lose the patents for inventions that the Allies IOTL harvested from her in 1919 at Versailles, which cost Germany huge income. Germany had the world's second largest merchant shipping fleet which was seized IOTL at Versailles along with huge amounts of other capital investments. Here that won't happen and Germany can continue to focus on exporting industrial goods.

Britain however will have her financial sector depleted and unable to recollect its loans quickly if at all, especially if Germany is squeezing France, Italy, and Russia, which were Britain's debtees. Britain primarily exported finished consumer goods in contrast to Germany's heavy industry, so would find that the US had filled that void in the meantime. With her primary industries weakened and having competition they weren't used to, both Britain and France will be in a bad way post war. They won't be broke or unable to compete, but will not have their pre-war economic strength, while Germany has just grabbed all the things her economy needed, so will have a base to expand on in the 1920s and exceed her 1914 potential by the mid-1920s. I'm not saying Germany will be recovering in 1918 or 1919 or even 1922, but by 1925-6 Germany is going to be relatively stronger than Britain by a wide margin relative to 1914. Its only going to get worse from there. Remember that IOTL 1939 Britain still hadn't even recovered her financial position of 1914.

OTL example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_Kingdom#Interwar_era


Germany would top her by a wide margin ITTL and did pre-war IOTL anyway. IOTL post war German industry was purposely hobbled so it couldn't compete with Britain, yet Britain STILL was falling behind. Here it would be worse without Germany being in Civil War, looted, having huge tariffs against her products, having her former cheap supplier of raw materials (Russia) cut off, and mired in war debt she couldn't pay off.

Maybe Britain can keep all that Russian gold they were keeping from the revolutionaries in Canada...

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Maybe to even it a little bit, Britain seizes Mittelafrika and refuses to let it go and reaps it's own rewards off of it. While Germany has to fight several wars in the pacific to regain colonies from Japan. Russia may be able to pay back it's debts to Britain if they pull a Chiang and flee to siberia with a majority of the Empire's funds. They now don't have to support as large a population and they are now in control of the mineral rich parts of the country.

Why waste resources in Asia for colonies that generated no profit, while the crown jewel of profitable colonies in Africa are seized? Germany gave up on Asia by 1917 IOTL, so its not an issue, especially when its so far away.
Britain would be really stupid to commit the major resources to seize Mittelafrika when Germany would be able to focus all of her resources on fighting Britain, who would be fighting alone and be pretty broke from WW1. Germany would seize Belgium again and start up the Uboat war again with the US pretty pissed that Britain started up the really unnecessary war with Germany again. British civilians would be pissed. Oh and did I mention that at this point in time Britain was dependent on oil imports from the US for her navy? So if the US isn't interested in another war, they cut off the oil to Britain, ending any hope of winning. Its just a non-starter after WW1.

If this is part of the peace negotiations to end WW1 that causes Britain to seize the Congo during the war...where are the resources going to come from when Britain is out of money in 1917? Her forces were committed to the hilt in 1917-18, so had no more to do this when they were still chasing Lettow-Vorbeck around, invading the Middle East, and fighting in France, while France would be falling apart without US supplies, not to mention Britain being in serious trouble without US oil if the US doesn't enter the war and give them anything they need.

Also Russia was totally out of money in 1917, so had nothing but debts to bring with them. Siberia at this point was totally underdeveloped, so had nothing but unaccessible mineral wealth in the underpopulated parts of the country (the land beyond the Urals was only populated forcibly by Stalin in the 1930s). So thats a total nonstarter.

Maybe Britain can keep all that Russian gold they were keeping from the revolutionaries in Canada...

How much was that? If they do then they can count on Russia making trouble in Central Asia and Afghanistan, which IOTL started trouble with the British, but now could have Russian help in retaliation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Afghan_War

Oh and let's not forget the Irish Troubles are coming after the war no matter what.