British-German cold war post CP victory

thats why it would be a cold war type scenario, Britain and probably France( lets face it, hated germany after Franco-Prussian war, hate it even more now, especially if they can't show it out right, lot of cloak and dagger kinda stuff) stealthily backing rival factions in china, rebels in congo/africa, and hell, why not, the Bolsheviks who won't forget Brest-litvsk. Germany in return would help the independence movements in the Empire, sneakily so as to not excite their own colonies.
 
thats why it would be a cold war type scenario, Britain and probably France( lets face it, hated germany after Franco-Prussian war, hate it even more now, especially if they can't show it out right, lot of cloak and dagger kinda stuff) stealthily backing rival factions in china, rebels in congo/africa, and hell, why not, the Bolsheviks who won't forget Brest-litvsk. Germany in return would help the independence movements in the Empire, sneakily so as to not excite their own colonies.

At virtually every point during the Great War, the great powers stance was that imperialism trumps nationalism. I don't really think anybody wants to let that particular cat out of the bag.
 
At virtually every point during the Great War, the great powers stance was that imperialism trumps nationalism. I don't really think anybody wants to let that particular cat out of the bag.

They won't. Nationalism will come on its own.

Britain and Germany will both have to deal with it, and bogging each other down in colonial wars is going to be their main aim. I doubt a cold war will allow them to work together to keep imperialism going.

Historians will look at the imperialist cold war as the reason imperialism died. :p
 
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.

Even if Germany ows money to its own popoulation, it must repay. State funds will not be sufficient for this, even with French payments. The typical things to deal with such a situation can be seen today: austerity (likely favoured by Junkers and market liberals) and inflation. Austerity is unlikely since Germany needs money for its new Empire. Neither will help Germany's ascend to world power status.

Of course, otherwise you're absolutely right: Germany is still in a better situation than IOTL, whereas its former enemies are in a worse situation. It's just that Germany will still have major problems.
 
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.

I'm not sure I follow. Even OTL, the Germans twice came within sniffing distance of Paris, so if they beat the Allied armies they must overrun the Paris region at some point.

But anyway, do they need to? The talking of Amiens and Hazebrouck does serious damage to the French Army as well as the British. See the following from Haig's diary for 12 April 1918.

"I reached Doullens at noon - - Clemenceau was anxious about our covering the Bruay coal mines effectively. - - There are only 5 days reserve [of coal] now at the French munitions factories, and as 70% of of their coal comes from the Bruay district, it is of very great importance to cover the mines as loing as possible. I assured him on this point - -".

Also, most of the munitions factories in question were in and around Paris, so if the Germans can sever the railway links between Paris and the armies to its east, the latter are in serious trouble at a time when (if the BEF is at leat temporarily out of the game) they are fighting the Germans effectively single-handed.

I would expect any "capture" of Paris to be the result of Allied defeat rather than a cause of it. After all, the Allies never conquered the Rhineland, yet in Dec 1918 they occupied it all the same under the terms of the November armistice.




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.

I'd have thought any such race would be between u-boat production and anti-submarine measures, with the Germans looking to s "second round" against Britain an decade or two hence, when they have 500 u-boats or so, and maybe also naval bases on the Atlantic coast of France.




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.


Initially yes. The question is how long this lasts. Iirc there were quite a few left-wing governments in the immediate aftermath of the war, but that for most of the interwar period the right tended to dominate most places in Europe.
 
Last edited:

Kongzilla

Banned
I think Nationalism might get a boost seeing as a whole bunch of countries just got freed from the boot of imperialism or at least it looks that way at a glance.
 
no more than OTL, and most likely less, as A-H will still be around keeping their citizens together, the balkans will be more unified what with A-H hegemony over Serbia/montenegro and Bulgaria/Ottomans keeping down the rest. Though I would suspect that the baltic countries will remain independent longer what with the Kaiserreich still around to keep the Bolsheviks off
 
You are seriously overestimating the desires AND influence of the Kaiser in decision making. Especially by 1917 he was a figurehead.

The Kaiser wanted to rule the world. In a victorious German, his power would be much restored. And a CP victory is a victory for an ideology of conquest and expansion.

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).

He didn't care about what was economically worthwhile, he cared about power and prestige.

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.

That is true, and subjugating Europe and the lion's share of Africa is going to take a lot of time. But sooner or later, he will want more. He always wanted more.
 
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.

I can't see the SPD gaining power in Germany, nor a swing to the left happening in Britain, before there's another war.

In Britain, there will be a swing to the right within the Conservative Party first - if only because the leading Tories who weren't part of the coalition government, are on the very reactionary right. Having effectively lost the war and facing an exceptionally bleak economic situation (and not just because of debt, but because Britain is now shut out of key European markets), I think Britain would develop something akin to the stabbed-in-the-back myth of OTL's Germany - but with the pre-war hierarchy still entirely in place, this attitude will have fairly free reign right from the start. In that scenario, I think Labour and other stridently left-wing parties will be wiped out (and quite possibly banned), and progressive Liberals will be discredited and ostracised. The gaggle of nationalistic, patriotic, far-right parties that existed in our timeline will come together and gain ground as working-class representation in Labour's place. When the Conservatives ultimately lose power (probably at the end of the 1920s), I think the turn will be further right rather than to the left.
 
The Kaiser wanted to rule the world. In a victorious German, his power would be much restored. And a CP victory is a victory for an ideology of conquest and expansion.



He didn't care about what was economically worthwhile, he cared about power and prestige.

Really? Really? Did you even try to read a book about Willi II? Or did you just make things up ala Willi II = proto Hitler, German Empire = Proto Nazi Germany? Beacause it sounds directly like that.

Here some informations: Nobody and I repeat nobody in the Kaiserreich wanted to rule the world. There was the classical imperialism like in every european country pre WW1. Weltgeltung and Weltmacht yes, but conquering the the world? Really? :rolleyes:
Besides in mid WW1 a shift of foreign policy happened. This shift was from the world wide power projecting to a continental power again.
Otherwise I think other users already mentioned it: The power of desicion making was shifting to the military industrial complex the later the war gets.
So you are overestimating the power of the Kaiser and second you overestimating his ambition.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
I think he wanted to rule the world but with more economic and political might than military might. And though during the War Ludendorf and that other bloke will were taking over, as soon as the war ends a majority of their power will go with it because the Kaiser will be the one making speeches and being in the public eye.
 
I really do wonder what the Japanese would do... They are occupying one of the two German colonies that makes a profit (the German Pacific Is.) On the other hand, can Germany force them out of the region? It is a long way to the Pacific. Would the Germans really want the Eastern colonies back? The experience of WW1 turned the generals against the idea of having indefensible colonies all over the world. That said, national pride would probably be enough for them to face down the Japanese...

Also, would a German victory in WW1 stop the Japanese from developing such a bad case of victory disease? Was the militarism of the 1930s Japan the most likely way for the country to go in 1919?

And while the Germans won't have reparations weighing them down, or the political humiliation of defeat, but they'll still have many of the other problems, plus some new ones.

And I am not sure if they would be able to make the Belgian Congo pay - the Belgians made a profit from Congo by being really amazingly nasty. The Belgian colonial government (yes, even post Leopold) could make even hardened Nazis look like humane people. I'm not sure the Imperial Germans would have the stomach for the sort of nastiness it took to milk Congo. The Herero and Namaqua Genocide had deeply shocked the German public. I'm not sure that the German government, even if it were a government that had no personal objections to that sort of institutional cruelty, would be willing to risk displeasing their own public opinion so soon after what had happened in SW Africa.

I doubt that Germany could stop the Bolsheviks from winning the Russian civil war - the Germans fought pretty hard to stop the Bolsheviks OTL - as did the French, Americans, Japanese and British. The Germans were at the edge of exhaustion in 1918, I don't see how they could defeat the Bolsheviks even if they won the war... They'd still be exhausted, and the Russians would still be determined.

I also doubt that Britain would turn into "Germany on an Island" if they lost WW1. Unless Germany wins the war by winning at sea, they've not really defeated Britain the way Britain had defeated them OTL. So absent uboat success or crushing the Home fleet, they cannot inflict much on Britain in the peace treaty. That leaves Britain in a situation that is actually alot like she was in after winning WW1. She has allies who cannot or will not repay her loans, large loans from the US, has lost many markets in Europe due to war damage and to German occupation. Other than the German occupation, that isn't too different from OTL.

My bet is that the British react to it like they did to peace with revolutionary France - a temporary breathing space in a longer war that they simply cannot let the Germans win.

In a way, I suspect that losing the war would be better for the British than winning was. Having lost, they KNOW things have gone wrong and they have to shape up. Unlike OTL where they tried to get back to business as usual, alot more of the British people and British establishment are going to see there being a case for change.

fasquardon
 
Anyone have any thoughts about how Japan would develop in a TL like this?

I know very little about Japan in this prediod, but I'll toss out an idea for folks to consider:

WW1 ends with a skin-of-the-teeth CP victory, Japan returns the Pacific Islands to Germany in the peace treaty. Japan feels let down by their European and (if they were in the war) American allies. On the right, we may see a version of the "stab in the back" myth develop with Japan's destined victory being stolen by the weakness of the British, French and (if they were in the war) Americans. Where before, Japan had used both Germany and Britain as templates for its modernization, post-war they look exclusively to Germany. Assuming Germany in this TL retains a military-dominated political system, we may see Japan turning militarist much earlier in this TL. Even if Germany becomes more democratic post war, we could still see a more autocratic Japan due to the example of what Ludendorf and Hindenburg had achieved in the "emergency period".

Alternatively, the evolution towards militarism in Japan could be decisively stopped by the defeat. I am not sure that is terribly likely though, unless the Japanese are defeated in battle. Say if the Japanese insisted on keeping the German colonies after the peace in Europe and then were defeated by a German expedition to the Pacific. Given the extreme range of such an operation, I am not entirely sure if Germany could defeat Japan... That said, the Germans have a much stronger hand (and fleet) than the Russians did in 1905, and the Japanese barely won that face off... Most likely it would depend if the Germans could arrange the logistics for an expedition.

To get back to the thread topic - in an Anglo-German cold war, I think the Japanese would be something of a wild-card whatever happened. However militarist Japan goes, it is going to have a strong interest in China, and at least be vying with Germany for influence in the country, if not launching an attempt to conquer all or part of China as they did OTL. On the other hand, I don't see the OTL drivers that led to the cooling of the Ango-Japanese relationship changing, if anything, my call would be that the relationship is likely to cool faster in this TL.

Thoughts?

fasquardon
 

Deleted member 1487

Japan IMHO would get everything they got IOTL because Germany can't take it back; maybe Japan would pay a pittance for it at the peace treaty to smooth things over. Otherwise I think that Japan and Britain would remain allied because Britain needs allies after losing a war. So Japan pretty much acts per OTL except with British backing. I'm not sure there would be a naval treaty post war though.
Germany get payback and just plain paid by helping China out in the 1920s and 30s. Germany would want an Asian market and ally, so by having no colonies in Asia or colonial interests in China, Germany would be China's perfect ally; IOTL instead of breaking that for an alliance with Japan, China becomes Germany's proxy in Asia, probably with a significant Condor Legion plus ground contingent expeditionary force to help build up China. It would be a 'Flying Tigers' with Germans instead of Americans.

Japan though probably isn't embargoed thanks to British influence, or at least through British underhandedness in getting around the US organized embargo (I doubt the US and Britain would be very close after TTL WW1 without US entry). I think the Dutch would be more in the German orbit, so we could see the Island Nations team up against the world in a sense, as Britain helps Japan to keep her away from British interests in Asia, while the US and Germany organize an embargo on Japan, while helping her fight Japan. If anything the US and Germany could end up getting closer thanks to the China issue. A classic 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' scenario.
 
Japan IMHO would get everything they got IOTL because Germany can't take it back; maybe Japan would pay a pittance for it at the peace treaty to smooth things over. Otherwise I think that Japan and Britain would remain allied because Britain needs allies after losing a war. So Japan pretty much acts per OTL except with British backing. I'm not sure there would be a naval treaty post war though.
Germany get payback and just plain paid by helping China out in the 1920s and 30s. Germany would want an Asian market and ally, so by having no colonies in Asia or colonial interests in China, Germany would be China's perfect ally; IOTL instead of breaking that for an alliance with Japan, China becomes Germany's proxy in Asia, probably with a significant Condor Legion plus ground contingent expeditionary force to help build up China. It would be a 'Flying Tigers' with Germans instead of Americans.

Japan though probably isn't embargoed thanks to British influence, or at least through British underhandedness in getting around the US organized embargo (I doubt the US and Britain would be very close after TTL WW1 without US entry). I think the Dutch would be more in the German orbit, so we could see the Island Nations team up against the world in a sense, as Britain helps Japan to keep her away from British interests in Asia, while the US and Germany organize an embargo on Japan, while helping her fight Japan. If anything the US and Germany could end up getting closer thanks to the China issue. A classic 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' scenario.

I am very dubious about the idea that Germany would let its Pacific colonies go - as mentioned before, they were one of the few parts of the German Empire that brought in any money. And keep in mind the racism of the era - I very much doubt the Germans would be willing to take the prestige hit of letting some bunch of yellow monkeys occupy one of the best bits of their empire when a few of the Kaiser's battleships would send them running with their tails between their legs (as the Germans are likely to see it). It took Pearl Harbour, Singapore, Burma, Malasia, the Philippines, DEI campaign and the Japanese post-war economic miracle to break Western racism with regards to the Japanese. Also compare the situation of the French in Indochina after WW2 - even after WW2 proved that the French couldn't hold the place - they still spent enormous amounts of blood and treasure trying to retain the colony. I see German Pacific as a similar case for the German high command. They know the islands aren't very defensible, but on the other hand, letting the Japanese walk all over them is an insult to German honour and those islands are THEIRS darnit... Also, the navy are likely to be keen to actually USE their shiny battleships and thus justify funding for the next generation of battleships.

And I think the Germans would have a good chance in a fight with Japan - Japan won against Russia by the skin of their teeth. If the Tsar had been a bit more stubborn, Russia probably would have won by default, as Japan went bankrupt. Also, Japan got really lucky on both land and sea. It isn't too likely that the Japanese get another run of luck like that. Germany isn't Russia, they have a formidable fleet, with good sailors, good officers and some of the most modern ships afloat. So long as the Germans can GET the fleet to the Pacific (I think they have the logistical capacity, but I might be wrong), I think they will have the advantage over the Japanese fleet, which at this point, does not have so many modern battleships.

I don't think Britain could do anything to stop the US from embargoing Japan if Japan did as OTL and went after China. Nor do I think Britain would WANT to stop an embargo in such a situation. Britain had significant interests in China, and like the US, liked China being whole and open to trade. China was an important trade partner for Britain and will be even more important in this TL due to the importance of solidifying the country's finances in order to better oppose Germany. (China was an important trade partner due to Britain's trade with China running a surplus.)

And OTL, the British did try to keep the alliance with Japan alive for as long as they could. The problem was that the British didn't want to get caught up in a war between Japan and the US. If forced to choose between keeping Japan happy or the US happy, the British are going to keep the US happy, even if the US are a grumpily Anglo-phobic neutral (which was what the US was OTL when the British decided to let the alliance with Japan expire). Now if Germany wins WW1 and stays in the Pacific, there is one driver there to cause the Japanese and particularly the British to be more keen on their alliance (the common threat of Germany). On the other hand, Germany winning does nothing to change the risk of a US-Japanese naval war. And for the Japanese, the British have just proven themselves unable to defeat the Germans, I suspect Japan would thus be less attached to the alliance with Britain in this scenario. One thing that might change this is if the Japanese and Germans end up in a shooting war over the Pacific colonies - if Britain helps the Japanese the alliance may be strengthened by fire-forged friendship, but I don't see the British helping the Japanese unless they have decided to fight on themselves - and the original post was proposing that WW1 had ended somehow. To take the opposite case - the Japanese and Germans fight for the Pacific and the British, having already signed a peace treaty, stay out - well, then both the British and Japanese are going to be pissed at each-other no matter who wins the German/Japanese contest.

Germany and China are far from perfect allies. "China" in this period means Beiyang China, and a more corrupt and villainous lot of bandits are hard to imagine (literally bandits in some cases). They were also not terribly competent. The Beiyang regime didn't have much control beyond Beijing itself and the various warlord factions of the Beiyang regime were engaged in constant factional strife, occasionally turning into all out civil war. If Germany gets involved in propping the Beiyang up (which makes alot of sense on the surface, pushing Britain out of the China trade is a nice way to weaken the Brits while expanding the markets available to German industry), most likely it will suck up alot of men and money for very little profit.

Also, a German alliance has a potential downside for the Beiyang faction who allies with them as well - the concession in Shangdong. OTL China joined the allies in WW1 in return for receiving the German concession Shangdong. (The allies of course broke this promise at Versailles, where they studiously ignored the Chinese delegation, this scandal lead to a great deal of protest in China and would eventually result in the birth of the Chinese Communist Party.) If Germany insists Japan (who were occupying Shangdong at the end of WW1) return the concession to them and then keeps it, it is likely to be an issue for Chinese nationalists. Now if Germany keeps Shangdong and offers support to the Beiyang, I am betting the Beiyang regime would accept the support, they were in a constant state of penury. But it will mean yet another bunch of people upset at the supine corruptness of the Beiyang, more support for the Nationalist regime in the South, more problems for the German advisers in the country. Now the Germans might give the Chinese the concession, which would be a smart political move - it would give the Beiyang a big political boost. Giving the Beiyang the Shangdong concession outright is going to cause difficulties for German businesses in China though. The Beiyang don't really have the administrative capacity to govern the entrepot (they really were massively corrupt), so most likely if the Germans "gave" the Beiyang Shangdong, they would continue to run all the important things themselves (mainly police, courts and customs) which is going to have the Chinese nationalists (small "n" nationalists, not the Nationalists of the KMT in the South) asking barbed questions about the German concession that is a concession in all but name...

All this is assuming the Japanese give Shangdong it back to the Germans - see above discussion of the Pacific Islands - and if the Germans don't get the Shangdong concession back, that's going to make them look kinda weak to the Chinese in a "these guys are strong in Europe, but weak in Asia" way.

Also, I wouldn't bet on the US closeness - or lack of it - with Britain. The US has drivers to oppose the British and drivers to align with them - Germany winning WW1 changes those drivers - but it could change them in either direction depending on host of factors. If the US stayed out of WW1 entirely it means the interventionist faction hasn't had its fingers burnt, so we could see a much less isolationist US. On the other hand, the US could be as isolationist as OTL in the 20s and 30s. Even so, American business will still be expanding internationally and the US is likely to keep the Pacific and China as exceptions to its isolationist attitudes just as it did OTL. It is very likely that the US and Germany end up competing for business and influence around the world. This becomes more likely the worse Britain does in the 20s. Britain pre-war dominated trade with Latin America, Japan and China. If Britain is out-competed by the US and Germany and withdraws within her empire, it will be the US and Germany contending with each-other for the prizes.

Also, just as the British disgusted the Americans with their behavior in victory, the Germans are likely to disgust them also. Just as the 1920s saw the Americans get closer to the Germans in OTL, I could see the Americans getting closer to the French and the British in TTL. (Particularly the French - just as the US funneled loans into Germany to rebuild it post war, they are likely to funnel loans into France in order to rebuild it and thus keep a semblance of a balance of power in Europe.)

Worth mentioning is that Britain, as a matter of long-standing policy, has generally tried to give the Americans what they wanted (much to the ire of the Canadians when this involved giving away bits of the Canadian colonies to keep the US happy). Faced with a German Empire supreme on the Continent, Britain is going to be very keen on keeping the US as friendly as possible. If nothing else, America is a hugely important trade partner, and a trade partner that isn't under threat of being cut off by the Germans. While a series of bad accidents might drive Britain and the US into opposition, it is rather unlikely that such a string of bad luck would happen. More likely both countries maintain a friendly neutrality that is more or less distant depending on the internal politics in each.

Though a TL featuring a 3-cornered cold war between Germany, Britain and the US (and their sundry allies) would be a rather fun one.

fasquardon
 
Top