Clichés in Central Powers Scenarios.

[Sturm1820]

Hi everyone, I'm doing a Central Powers Victory scenario and would like to know clichés to avoid making a lazy timeline.

My scenario is based on a German victory at Verdun, which allows in the long run to break through the French lines and bring them to the negotiating table. Brest-Livostk is signed before and the Ottomans collapse after British offensives in Palestine and Mesopotamia in late 1917 and early 1918.

The Germans recover their colonies (for the convenience of British interests, I will explain that when the TL goes up) and secure Brest-Livostk. The British receive in return a naval disarmament treaty, where they ensure that Germany will not enter a new arms race and a status quo in Western Europe, with the exception of Luxembourg and some border adjustments in the Vosges.

 

[Riain]

Britain can keep all the colonies they capture because of the Royal Navy and there is nothing Germany can do about it despite being the victor on the Western front. Britain is basically invincible and can simply ignore Germanys victory and there will be no consequences.

 

[Sturm1820]

Gran Bretaña puede quedarse con todas las colonias que captura gracias a la Royal Navy y no hay nada que Alemania pueda hacer al respecto a pesar de ser el vencedor en el frente occidental. Gran Bretaña es básicamente invencible y simplemente puede ignorar la victoria de Alemania y no habrá consecuencias.

Yeah, I've always found that annoying. I mean, it depends a lot on the negotiators present, but I don't think the British, with the treasure in pieces, want to add new colonies to their control. In the case of Australia, they would really follow the imperial policy and if the UK gives back colonies, Australia will too. I think the most resistant to return would be South Africa, but it is a domain after all.

 

[Lalli]

France becomes socialist nation

Not really likely IMO. France had already left-wing government during the war, so any extremist left-wing regime can't have any chances get power. More likely is right-wing if not outright authotarian regime.

Second Great War

Not really likely. France is surely angry and Russia wants reverse Brest-Litovsk but there is quiet few what they could do. And France would be really demoralised after losing two wars in 50 years. And Germany would be really winnigful enforce any terms.

Britain is hostile to Germany forever

That is not how international diblomacy works. Countries often reconsile.

Britain sees revolutionary waves

That is not too very likely. Some restless surely but hardly revolution.

 

[NoMommsen]

France becomes socialist nation

Not really likely IMO. France had already left-wing government during the war, so any extremist left-wing regime can't have any chances get power. More likely is right-wing if not outright authotarian regime.

... or even fascistoid (yet another often called cliché)?
Not without a napoleonesque/hitleresque person with similar demagogical abilities to rally (the ... and then esp. the french) people behind him.
IMHO authoritarian as well as fascistoid are even more clichés as a socialist/communist regime. The Paris Commune didn't worked already back in 1871.
Much more likely french politics would keep on resembling Weimarian style politics the 3rd Republique was already known for (52 cabinets in 48 year up to 1918 if I counted correctly). And similarily it would be in times a to 'n fro between more rightish (as i.e. in 1919 IOTL) and more leftish majorities of its 9 to 12 (? ... about) political parties in parliament.

Yet some other clichés regarding Germany:
The so-called "Silent Dictatorship" would be carried over into peacetime administration of the German Realm as a 'junkers' regime either by perpetuation of the so-called "silent dictatorship" (which 'worked' only as long as the civil service accepted it as the relative failures in execution of the War Profit law [unfortunatly much too little covered by openly accessable sources] and the Auxillery service Act of December 1916 showed) supported by military 'enforcement'

Hindenburg would 'simply' go home and without Hindenburg Ludendorff is ... actually was one of the by every establishment best hated person without any power of his own​

or by electorial 'victory' of conservative/rightish parties

which combined never even achieved 20 from 1890 onwards only loosing in every following Reichstags election.​

However, the first postwar election also won't be a 'sweeping' victory for the SPD and leftish liberals. The elections to the National Assambly IOTL in 1919 were an exceptional situation after the revolution which very likely won't happen ITTL. A rather 'mixed' result as in 1920 would be much more probable.
Same would hold true for the first prussian Landtags election after the IMHO unavoidable though by the 'junkers' and Kaiser Bill strongly though futile opposed franchise reform with results similar to the 1921 election (maybe somewhat more for the leftish liberals ...).

Next cliché: the all too often strained Dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.
Simply not gonna happen being victorious with the to be expected spoils. ... which might not materialize quickly (if at all in the hoped for amounts) but will offer enough time for the austro-hungarian administration to do what they were already so good at since 1864:

somehow managing to compromise and stumble and creep along with many regional, local, small and minor 'adjustments' in the direction of more autonomy resembling rather evolutionary (to geological) pace due to the all too well known 'inertia' of the austro-hungarian bureaucracy.​

... though possibly not without some 'birth pangs' as there will be at least ONE BIG change: altering the hungarian franchise

 

[AK47Productions]

Another one I usually see is that a CP victory means that the Bolsheviks lose the RCW and we get a right-wing dictatorship in Russia instead. Lenin could still be sent to Russia IMO and even a victorious Entente IOTL couldn't save the Whites so I'm not sure if the CP would have done any better in putting the Reds down.

Britain can keep all the colonies they capture because of the Royal Navy and there is nothing Germany can do about it despite being the victor on the Western front. Britain is basically invincible and can simply ignore Germanys victory and there will be no consequences.

Britain is hostile to Germany forever

That is not how international diblomacy works. Countries often reconsile.

Germany could theoretically get their colonies back in an Anglo-German rapprochement couldn't they? Especially if there is a mutual enemy somewhere on the European continent. Besides apart from Tanganyika being kept for the sake of the Cape to Cairo Railway project, would any of Germany's former colonies be valuable enough for Britain to actually want to hang on to?

 

[oberdada]

Lettow-Vorbeck is still going, so there is some kind of German colony, no matter what.


Zeppelin wank is to cool to ignore, even if cliché.

 

[Gar48]

Austria-Hungary conquers Veneto / Venice. IRL even the most nationalist Austrian politicians had no plans for such annexation.
Vienna was primarily interested in having an unarmed Italy as a neighbor, ensuring that Rome could not interfere with its interests in Albania and the Balkans.

If the Central Powers had been victorious, Italy would have been in a similar position of OTL Bulgaria in the same period of time: we would have lost some small territories close to Austria , but the main point would have been to reduce the size of our army and navy.

Also I doubt the Ottomans would have been able to take over Lybia, but i suspect the revolt of the natives and our answer would have been even worse.

 

[Aphrodite]

The British receive in return a naval disarmament treaty, where they ensure that Germany will not enter a new arms race and a status quo in Western Europe, with the exception of Luxembourg and some border adjustments in the Vosges.

That the British have a hope in hell of enforcing this provision. I can see a naval clause put in for window dressing but there's no way the Germans are just turning the Oceans over to the British.

After all, Britain couldn't keep the sealanes open with France and Russia as allies.

Also, what does Germany get for returning Nirthern France? The Germans have it, France wants it and, in your scenario, France and Britain cant take it back. They have to buy it.

If the Central Powers had been victorious, Italy would have been in a similar position of OTL Bulgaria in the same period of time: we would have lost some small territories close to Austria , but the main point would have been to reduce the size of our army and navy.

Italy's fate is hard to assessz here. Austria probably wants harsh terms but Germany may be far less interested. Germany will see Italy punished but might like her to keep a check on rhe Austrians.

On the other hand, Germany might still need a moderately strong Austria against a resurgent Russia

 

[Gar48]

Italy's fate is hard to assessz here. Austria probably wants harsh terms but Germany may be far less interested. Germany will see Italy punished but might like her to keep a check on rhe Austrians.

The problem is that only Franz Joseph wanted to retake Venice. Most of the other Austrian politicians considered retaking lands that they had lost more than 50 years earlier and were full of hostile natives a bad idea.

Likewise unlike OTL Germany,Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans, Italy isn't full of ethnic groups ready to revolt against the central government (something that caused the dissolution of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, and the expansion of Poland at Germany's expense at the end of WW1). Bulgaria lost so little territory after OTL WW1 simply because almost nobody was claiming parts of its territory.

Austria could be able to occupy Veneto, but Vienna would need substantial help from Germany to occupy the entire peninsula. Like OTL France regarding Germany, Vienna won't be able to accomplish its territorial ambitions towards Italy simply because it doesn't have enough men to do so.

Indeed where is Vienna going to find the soldiers needed to keep Veneto in line, if it decides to annex it?

I agree the peace conditions could be harsh but only from an economic point of view.

 

[Riain]

Germany could theoretically get their colonies back in an Anglo-German rapprochement couldn't they? Especially if there is a mutual enemy somewhere on the European continent. Besides apart from Tanganyika being kept for the sake of the Cape to Cairo Railway project, would any of Germany's former colonies be valuable enough for

They'll demand them back by right of winning the war, and Britain would be in no position to refuse. Indeed Britains position would be so dire that handing them back would be done with almost embarrassing speed. If Britain ties to say no then in the short term the Germans would renew hostilities against them and in the long-term Britain would have the German Navy using French bases.

Britain was very good in the political and strategic sphere in WW1, probably the best of all the combatants. British leaders will realise their situation and choose the lesser of two evils, make peace and work on improving their newfound bad situation in the peacetime.

 

[cardcarrier]

In no particular order

that German offensives after mid 1916 don’t collapse into total indiscipline because the troops stop to gorge and loot; most ww1 cp scenarios treat their infantry as digits instead of the hungry desperate men they were

that Germany wouldn’t war crime all over everything they touched If they gained more territory even in the west

that a victorious Germany wouldn’t use the foot guards and more loyal rural divisions to keep social democrats in line; when the implicit threat of military force again them has existed since the 1860s

that a social democrat parliament would allocate huge cash to the navy after the war when they did nothing to win it and their upper management where so utterly in Wilhelms pocket

that Germany’s colonies including potential new ones wouldn’t come into rebellion because Germany would become the one colonizer that was benevolent; even though historically they genocided and oppressed all over them despite spd majorities in the reichstag

that a victorious oe wouldn’t finish wiping out the Armenians

that Germany would sponsor people who were somehow less blood thirsty and economically suicidal than lenin and have superior outcomes for Russia (Spain and many other contemporary civil wars of the interwar period showed white forces where more than capable of very wide spread killing)

that no League of Nations analogue or something even more effective doesn’t develop which means a 2nd war starts with little to no diplomacy

that a puppet Poland isn’t ruthlessly exploited and harshly controlled

that other puppet regimes in Eastern Europe aren’t carved up into massive estate gifts for Wilhelms favorite generals and ultimately annexed sometime later

 

[pompejus]

One thing that always bothers me is that after Germany wins WWI it creates Mittel Europe and than for some reason the Netherlands and other neutral countries (like the scandinavian countries) join it. No, that won't happen. Mittel Europe was not some kind of proto-EU. It was a way for Germany to dominate other countries. Neutral countries would know this and never willingly join. The only way for the Netherlands (or other neutral countries) to join would be for Germany to defeat them in a war. A war noone in Germany wanted, since they just got out of a rather brutal war. Also in the early 20th century European countries did not simply started wars with other European countries, they needed a casus belli, which would be comepletely absent

 

[Riain]

One thing that always bothers me is that after Germany wins WWI it creates Mittel Europe and than for some reason the Netherlands and other neutral countries (like the scandinavian countries) join it. No, that won't happen. Mittel Europe was not some kind of proto-EU. It was a way for Germany to dominate other countries. Neutral countries would know this and never willingly join. The only way for the Netherlands (or other neutral countries) to join would be for Germany to defeat them in a war. A war noone in Germany wanted, since they just got out of a rather brutal war. Also in the early 20th century European countries did not simply started wars with other European countries, they needed a casus belli, which would be comepletely absent

Mitteleuropa is a strange thing, Germany wanted it but AH was lukewarm. German agricultural interests wanted tariff protection from AH and AH Industrial interests wanted protection against German industry.

It was about control, and German industrialists knew it was no substitute for access to global markets so its establishment was contingent on it being accepted by the Western powers.

As for neutrals, perhaps if they were shut out of ME trade they'd join.

 

[pompejus]

It was about control, and German industrialists knew it was no substitute for access to global markets so its establishment was contingent on it being accepted by the Western powers.

As for neutrals, perhaps if they were shut out of ME trade they'd join.

As you said, it would be no substitute for access to the global markets. So would it be beneficial for neutral powers to be dominated by Germany, and lose access to the global market, just to join the Mittel Europe trade block? And if joining Mittel Europe would still give them access to the global market, it would mean they don't have to join since they would already be able to trade with Mittel Europe.

In the end I would say that joining Mittel Europe would be far more disadventageous than beneficial. Espeecialy for countries that were traditionaly neutral, like the Netherlands in 1918 was. Or countries that already were fearful for German domination and actualy changed the succession laws to avoid a German prince to become king, like the Netherlands did.

 

[JohnBull]

As @Lalli the most boring clichés are the utter destruction of Britain and France, the need to have a Second World War and Germany becoming a superpower. Britain and France won on OTL and they had their own issues later.

For Russia, you could go either with Soviet Union or they to keep the Empire, but as above, they will be there.

Said that, I guess Germany could have their colonies back, even the Asian ones, on the negotiations table. They would probably demand that and I don't think the defeated would bother so much.

 

[steamboy]

Another usual one. At one point there will be a jutland esque major naval clash and pretty much 3/4 of the RN ships sunk will explode, including the dreadnoughts.

 

[NoMommsen]

Another usual one. At one point there will be a jutland esque major naval clash and pretty much 3/4 of the RN ships sunk will explode, including the dreadnoughts.

Have an example?
Actually I never came across either such a proposal or written ATL.

... rather an accusation made every time a CP victory scenario is proposed.

 

[NoMommsen]

One thing that always bothers me is that after Germany wins WWI it creates Mittel Europe and than for some reason the Netherlands and other neutral countries (like the scandinavian countries) join it. No, that won't happen. Mittel Europe was not some kind of proto-EU. It was a way for Germany to dominate other countries. Neutral countries would know this and never willingly join. The only way for the Netherlands (or other neutral countries) to join would be for Germany to defeat them in a war. A war noone in Germany wanted, since they just got out of a rather brutal war. Also in the early 20th century European countries did not simply started wars with other European countries, they needed a casus belli, which would be comepletely absent

As you said, it would be no substitute for access to the global markets. So would it be beneficial for neutral powers to be dominated by Germany, and lose access to the global market, just to join the Mittel Europe trade block? And if joining Mittel Europe would still give them access to the global market, it would mean they don't have to join since they would already be able to trade with Mittel Europe.

In the end I would say that joining Mittel Europe would be far more disadventageous than beneficial. Espeecialy for countries that were traditionaly neutral, like the Netherlands in 1918 was. Or countries that already were fearful for German domination and actualy changed the succession laws to avoid a German prince to become king, like the Netherlands did.

... you seem to forget that the 'Ober-Ost'- and war economy-system would rather quickly vanish and NOT being perpetuated (yet anothe cliché ...).

Wahtever 'Mitteleuropa' migth emerge it will be the result of exhaustive and painstakingly negotiations of civilian administrators with gives and takes from every party - including the germans as they were similar 'dependant' of the new Poland, Ukraine, Baltic, Bulgaria, Romania and esp. as the linking the Balkan dominating (even by sheer size alone) member the Habsburg Realm (whatever form it will eventually take) as they would be of Germany as the undustrial power house as @Riain already pointed at.
... sounds very much like the EU of today or each of its predecessing organisations (Montan-Union, the EEC, the EPC, all organisations created not at least to harness the german economical power to the benefit of the other members).

With so many members and interests to somehow unite under the same hat it is impossible for a german goverment to express a 'domination' as you seem to preclude (yet another cliché).
No, it would be VERY much like EU even today.

As far from the hoped for 'paradise' as the EU today from its hopes of the early fifties.​

But a laborious horsetrading of bits 'n pieces sometimes as ridicolus as the degree of arc of a banana.​

With their trade already before as well as after and ever since overwhealmingly focused on continental Europe the 'neutrals' (Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Portugal (?)) even France and Italy would be damn stupid NOT to arrange themself with such an enormous market brimming of financially potent consumers. ... what might as well 'interest' the US of A.

 

[PrinceofApathy]

Following.