CP Victory Aftermath
- Thread starter Sturm1820
- Start date
Could you elaborate? What makes it impossible? Ethnic uprisings would still likely divide the Empire; the idea of a Romanian or Slavic nation-state will always be extremely attractive to the minorities of the nation.
A resurgent Russia is inevitable. It's still by far the worlds largest country (not counting colonial Empires) with vast natural resources and a massive population.
Last edited:
Only if is a quick victory, beyond 1917 and the empire is doomed (before has a change for reform but it will hard, costly and not a given in term of success)...at least this was what the people in Wien and Budapest thought and looking at OTL i agree. We are not talking of a victory in a normal war, we are talking of the biggest massacre know to man, nobody winner or loser had avoided epical economical and social trouble in the aftermath and i don't see any reason why A-H and Germany will be safe.
Sure the usual counterpoint is: but people fought for the Empire till the last day, well first collapse during the war russian style is difficult to achieve and having an enemy that shoot at you make the bulk of your concetration effort going towards the fight and even in that case the cohesion of the K.u.K. was hard to keep (hell if Cadorna was not so paranoid regarding mindgame we had been alerted of the offensive in Trentino and at Caporetto well before the start of the war thanks to deserter...and no they were not even italian but czech.) But once the bullet stop oh well, the piper will want his due and a very long bill
Would Germany agree to that? Germany can't invade Britain, but Britain can't invade continental Europe. How are they going to force a change there? As things stand, the Germans in East Africa managed to hold out for the entire war.
Last edited:
Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empires collapses weren't inevitable. Yes. There was ethnic strife, but they still managed to hold out for almost 5 years fighting the most brutal war in history up until that point. What these countries needed was reform.
I never said they were inevitable, but it's likely.
And uh, reform is a nogo. The hundreds of years of history and societal shifts in the Habsburg realms made it impossible for any reforms, reforms that could solve its problems. The Ottomans can more easily change; they are only different from the Austrians in that the destruction of the old guard was easier. Try to give the Slavs autonomy (even though they'd still rather be in Serbia/Romania/Russia/Poland); well, the Hungarians will get mad (and they own 90% of the property.) Try to give the Bohemians autonomy; well, the economy of the Empire relies on the exploitation of Bohemian industry, and the Austrians definitely will get mad. The Habsburg Austro-Hungarian realm will only survive if it is not the Habsburg Austro-Hungarian realm. The Ottomans can at least continue in the legacy of their thousand-year-old empire.
The trope that Austria-Hungary was the next "sick man of Europe" had taken hold before the war broke out, oddly it was in London and Paris that nationalism looked to be the strong future, a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual empire was simply a relic of the past. Even stranger is how Russia shared this view, as if Russia was only Russian, and its many minorities were not multi-ethnic, -lingual or -religious. Admittedly the Empire needed reformed to accommodate the rising sense of nationalism, but I think it is taking too much of this Entente prophesy and how A-H was broken up by the victors as inevitable for comfort. An A-H implosion is almost silly trope, and thus I think it should be eyed suspiciously where Vienna is on anything but the vanquished side. Frankly the Empire worked, it worked in ways that we should marvel at given our modern notions of diversity, and on a practical side it was a better alternative to the small easily eaten fish forced out of the A-H pond. That is not to say the war does not leave deep fissures and many hurt feelings, broken links and wounded egos, but a collapse is only the product of a botched peace and the mishandling of the recovery, both possible, but far from inevitable. A-H has a rocky and difficult road to recovery but I think it is lazy to just implode it because we cynically refuse to believe that it could recover from this war. The point for me is to see how things change rather than simply follow into the OTL ruts, and if they do, really ponder why they end up on these low roads rather than limp on with glossed over pastiche of history we know. And I can say the same for the other tropes, Imperial Germany is more nuanced than the caricature it often gets, the Ottomans are likewise not so easily imploded, Russia is more than a revolution, France is not a nation of cowards and so on, and so, and so.
As much as things can stay the same, and there is a lot that will be hard to unravel as late as 1916, an undefeated to somewhere victorious Central Powers really should unravel far more about the future we know as history than we often see, I mean how different is a world where Churchill remains the failure of Gallipoli, Lenin is an unknown revolutionary, the Romanovs are not dead, Wilhelm II is forced to lead his nation into a peace, A-H survives, the Muslim world still has a Caliph, Mussolini is a socialist agitator, and all the other paths not taken are open to explore. This is why I still struggle to write my own TL in this vein, pluck at the threads and the tapestry unravels rapidly, it becomes more and more fictional to retain the things we know as history because the future from here can evolve into the very unfamiliar. I don't discount the relevance of OTL but I will question if it can be a good guide.
As much as things can stay the same, and there is a lot that will be hard to unravel as late as 1916, an undefeated to somewhere victorious Central Powers really should unravel far more about the future we know as history than we often see, I mean how different is a world where Churchill remains the failure of Gallipoli, Lenin is an unknown revolutionary, the Romanovs are not dead, Wilhelm II is forced to lead his nation into a peace, A-H survives, the Muslim world still has a Caliph, Mussolini is a socialist agitator, and all the other paths not taken are open to explore. This is why I still struggle to write my own TL in this vein, pluck at the threads and the tapestry unravels rapidly, it becomes more and more fictional to retain the things we know as history because the future from here can evolve into the very unfamiliar. I don't discount the relevance of OTL but I will question if it can be a good guide.
Still? That would imply they did so iOTL. Which wasn't the case. There was no War of Czechoslovak Independence. There was no Croatian Revolt. The numbers of Slavs, Romanians, and Italians who defected to their co-nationals (a process that was almost entirely done in POW camps rather than frontline mutinies) was minuscule compared to the number that served loyally. In 1918 the empire disintegrated first economically, then institutionally and militarily, and only then did the internal nationalists step up to fill the void. 1918 wasn't a successful version of 1848, the Empire buckled under external pressures and only then did the nationalists come to the fore.
Riain
Banned
The fate of the colonies is decided in Europe more than it is in Africa, and in a CP victory colonies become barraging chips to change the facts on the ground in Europe.
I think there's an idea that even in defeat Britain is invulnerable and can just say no to any demands placed on her. However this isn't thought through to its natural conclusion; if Britain doesn't deal she remains at war, without allies, in a worse position than the previous 3 or 4 years and with no hope of victory or even a good settlement.
It would be a bit like when the Bolsheviks were negotiating with the Germans in bad faith hoping for a revolution in Germany so the Germans wen't on the offensive again and took huge tracts of territory and put the Bolsheviks in a worse negotiating position, making Brest-Litovsk harsher. Britain will be faced with a choice of getting out while the getting is good, or fighting on hoping for some way of getting a better deal.
I think there's an idea that even in defeat Britain is invulnerable and can just say no to any demands placed on her. However this isn't thought through to its natural conclusion; if Britain doesn't deal she remains at war, without allies, in a worse position than the previous 3 or 4 years and with no hope of victory or even a good settlement.
It would be a bit like when the Bolsheviks were negotiating with the Germans in bad faith hoping for a revolution in Germany so the Germans wen't on the offensive again and took huge tracts of territory and put the Bolsheviks in a worse negotiating position, making Brest-Litovsk harsher. Britain will be faced with a choice of getting out while the getting is good, or fighting on hoping for some way of getting a better deal.
Nationalism isn’t as big an issue in more homogenous countries like Britain and France.
Oh well, because the A-H government worked hard to make sure that nobody fought their own nationalities, italians were sent in Russia, the Czech fought in the italian front (and we have a sizeble amount of deserter and as i said above, if Cadorna and co. were less paranoid we had previous very accurate intel of both the Strafferexpediton and Caporetto offensive).
Sure the defeat of 1918 greatly accelerated things but nationalism was pretty much a force at the time and discard because the Empire had survived the greatest massacre know to man till that moment by becoming a whole owned subsidiary of the German Empire is a lot optimistic even because both the economy and the institution had being severerly damaged by the conflict and had their own share of problem before the war.
It can be a silly trope that A-H is the next sick man of Europe...unfortunely doesn't make it untrue
I can see Britain returning Germany's colonies (at least the ones not held by dominions) in exchange for Belgium's territorial integrity. Germany can't force Britain to do anything, but if France is out, Britain can't force Germany to leave Belgium either. Maintaining the blockade gets trickier with France out too. They'd either have to expand it to include the northwest of France and Spain, or allow Germany to effectively circumvent it by getting goods via French and Spanish ports; doing the former would piss off France, Spain, and their trading partners.
Why are you acting like thoughtful policy is a mark against them lol?
And if Conrad had just gotten his requested budget AH would have performed as well as Germany. I fail to see what this has to do with what I said.
The nationalists had been pretty well marginalized or at least defanged in both halves of the Empire prior to WWI. The prolonged stress of the War was the one thing that made them relevant again.
Austria was involved in the Taiping Rebellion?
I didn't say A-H was in for a pleasant post-War. On that note, how about you re-read my comment because nothing you said has any bearing on whether or not A-H was brought down by rebellions.
No absolutely, it's a very intelligent idea...but frankly make your point about the few deserter a thing, well let's say incorrect.
Well first there i certain level of difference between some level of legitimate paranoia in time of war and the fact that A-H armed forces were forced to cheat and rob to found some money for their budget because one side of the empire doesn't want the army too strong or want to have leverage and no, not even with the money she will have performed well as Germany, it was an army more geared towards internal security and brief operations and without German great support will have not lasted as much during OTL war. What i said is that there was a specific reason why there were so little deserter to their own nationalities in the A-H army and great loyalty towards the nation was not really the biggest.
Well, first the Magyar and the Czech want to have some words with you and hello, the war has not been so brief that they are not that relevant and at them now you need to add the socialist/communist and the general loss of faith in the enstablishment.
Cheap humor will not change the fact that the war will cause immense social and economic trouble and frankly the A-H as a nation is totally unequipped to deal with that.
It's more implied and assumed from the post and yes i re-read it and frankly it simply ignore and belittle any nationalist sentiment and effort giving as only real reason that A-H collapsed the fact that she lost the war and the entente breack it up (external factor)
I think the first point to be noted is that the peace between GB and the Central Powers would be a negotiated one. Likely, Belgium is restored without issue in exchange for return of the colonies. Germany was willing to offer the same OTL and the British would not care enough about any African colonies to deny such a trade. I could also see a negotiated reparation payment for Belgium, that both sides would try to portray as their magnanimity. Far harder would be to gain the Pacific colonies back, Japan would likely get to retain some. It would be hard to compel them to just give everything back, some kind of concession would likely be needed for them to return their prices.
Russia: I have troubles seeing the White Forces not winning in a CP victory scenario. The direct neighbors would have a great interest in stopping the red forces from winning. Considering how even Poland was able to beat back Soviet Russia in that timeframe OTL, I would cast serious doubts on any scenario that has the White forces losing with Germany, A-H and likely even British support. The end result would likely be a monarchy in a similar vein like the one in Germany or A-H, a powerful monarch with a parliament and democratic elements. There are two ways this can then continue. Either you go the revanche route or conciliation. In both situations Russia would likely need time to rebuild and without the massively important regions they would have lost through Brest-Litvosk, they would need time to even get back to pre-WW1 levels.
For a second round, Russia would need allies. The same participants as OTL WW1 would be the first on the list. At least Italy would likely jump at any military alliance with such goals and anything really that would bring it out of the persona non grata situation the Central Powers would put it in. For France, it is harder to see them itching for another round, with having paid one of the highest blood tools in the war, there would be little interest in going for it again. More likely, the British would try to continue their better relationship with Russia. If a second round is the goal, I could see Russia going in a similar direction as OTL Germany. Anti-Semitism was rampant there, and nationalistic fervor would be nothing new. Not nazis per se, or anything close to it. But a Right-Wing Dictatorship.
Conciliation would essentially lead to a recreating of the Three-Emperor-Alliance. Russia would likely be put towards focusing more on its Asian territories and put into conflict regarding China, Afghanistan or Korea.
Italy: They would get the full brunt of the hatred of the Central Powers. A complete persona-non-grata on a diplomatic level and treated in such a manner. Every petty insult or treatment that you could imagine could happen. Essentially, seen as the traitor of the victorious alliance and given no quarter or outreaching hand to come back into the fold. If they don't turn to fascism or something similar, I would be surprised. On a foreign level similar to Germany in OTL, first likely better relations with one of the other losers of the war, either Russia or France. Depending on which of them would actively try to reverse their treaties or is antagonistic to the CPs. The final result could be a Triple Alliance between FR-RU-IT or just a Steel Pact with either Russia or the Gallic brother France. Overall, Italy would have a horrible standing from prestige to reliability.
France: Having paid one of the highest blood tolls from the Great Powers, France would be reeling from another loss against the "archenemy" in such a short time. After the - let's call it what it was - purges following the Dreyfus crisis, I have a hard time seeing any kind of monarchist uprising happening in France. With the OPs declaring for his scenario, that the moderates will remain in power and no right or left putsch is going to happen, France will have a worse interwar period than OTL. From a political side, I would say the Socialists would follow a similar role as the SPD did for Weimar. One of the pillars of the state and overall work towards a reconciliation for eternal peace in Europe. After unification and under Bismarck there was a period of cooperation between FR and GER, Weimar had some similar events and I doubt that France would not have statesmen from a similar caliber as Stresemann. If Germany would reciprocate or make use of such attempts, is of course a different beast. Their worst relations would likely be with the British, who would get accusations of having abandoned France and not fought like them etc.
Their colonies would be a serious strain on their resources, and the OTL wars they had to fight to have them remain would likely take longer or be even more brutally fought. I tend towards the former as the more likely scenario. Maybe they will even sell some or give them in exchange for treaty alleviation or as guaranty for payments.
A-H: The victory would grant the new Emperor great prestige and with the reforms already started before the war started, I have problems seeing it going in any other direction. The biggest stopping block for easing up on the nationalities was the Hungarian part, but after the nationalistic block failed to deliver on their promises, the way forward was already looking better. I doubt they would make a 180 turn and go back to repression. Cross nationality parties were on the up and without the complete crumbling of authority and military breakdown, there is no sign of the ethnicities starting some war to split the Habsburg Empire up. Every part of the empire wanted reform, not destruction or revolution. And it is highly likely that would happen. A perfect compromise from the get-go, not likely, but progress? Most definitely. Frankly, it is ludicrous to suggest it would crumble. Every successor state in that region was worse off and even ardent Czech separatists would look back in the interwar years and acknowledge that it was better before. The story of A-H being the next sick man of Europe is utter nonsense, and anyone postulating it has no idea what he or she or them is talking about.
As the second most powerful victor, they would demand a say in the future of Europe. In OTL there were already long discussions about every scenario for Poland and other territories. Germany would not get its way all the time and would have to make concessions. Essentially giving A-H a part of the pie. With Italy beaten, they get their say in Albania and the Adria will be their turf. The relations between these two states will be hostile and I don't think there will be even an attempt made to change that. To emancipate and lower German influence, A-H would likely try to improve their relations to old allies like Britain or the new Russia. Also, on the Balkan they would likely be a consistent and strong ally of Bulgaria. As the only state without any territorial aspirations on their land, it is a natural partnership, that would mostly be harmed by the common Austrian-Hungarian arrogance in regard to minor players. But maybe learned something...doubt it but hope never dies.
Germany: The big winner and undisputed hegemon on the continent. Their economic power would allow them to create an informal empire in the newly created states and further expand into the OTE. In combination with their plans for a bigger economic block, it could easily cement an economic block stronger than anything else at the time. If the Mitteleuropa plan would come into reality, depends on the circumstances. You would need concessions to the other nations that you want to join up with the exception of the newly created Eastern ones. They would not get a say, initially.
It could easily be that the CP would be turned into an actual military alliance with the eternal Dual-Alliance at its core. Bulgaria should be a near certainty to be added to the Dual-Alliance, similarly to the way Romania was once added or asa revival of the Triple Alliance with Bulgaria taking Italy's place. The OTE would share its place as a target of investments with the newly created eastern countries. Britain and Germany would likely compete towards economic projects there, but Germany should get some primary thanks to being a former ally.
On an internal level, the victory would increase the prestige of the army and ensure their utter primacy compared to the navy. They literally proved near completely worthless in the eyes of the people. With the U-boot being the major exception, they would likely be the future mainstay of the navy. For Prussia, the reform of the elective system was already in the making and discussed for a long-time. It was coming, just the details were in discussions. With such a boost to prestige and the proponents of a "Siegfrieden" vindicated, the chances for the conservative proposal to pass higher than for the other option. They had the House of Lords and the parliamentary majority on their side, add-on nationalistic feelings in regard to a victory, and they would likely carry through.
Finally, Germany could turn towards military dictatorship in line with the many other that existed in the OTL interwar-era or a slow process of reform continues. With the parliament slowly gaining more rights till they hit a maximum and an unsteady balance would exist. Or things continue as was before.
OTE: The victory should allow them to continue the path towards a stable future instead of crumbling into nothing. As a prime target for investment and with direct control of many regions that hold the black gold, there are paths open for a better future. If it goes that way, is not a given. But the chances are better than before.
Bulgaria: The new big kid on the block. Bulgaria would gain what they desired and maybe more. New territory, reparations and weaker frightenend neighbours would allow them to exert an amount of influence they had never had before. As part of the victors and likely a future partner of them, they would receive economic support as much as A-H or Germany can stomache. While being the least developed of the three European powers, they would profit from the downturn of their neighbours. Depending on when the war would end, all Balkan nations could be in a worse position compared to them. Serbia is finished either way, but Greece and Romania could also end up on the chopping block depending on if the the POD would allow asure the change or not. Regardless, both would face a Bulgaria strenghtened compared to the Balkan wars. Conflict would likely be in the future ahead, either as a revanche or because Bulgaria wants more. With CP support, I think they would get what they desire and at least A-H would be standing behind them.
Greece: Depends on war entry or staying neutral. If they entered war, they lose the lands Bulgaria wanted. The king would go out of this scenario smelling like roses, he was proven utterly fucking right and Venizelos wrong. If they stayed neutral, they would keep their lands but Venizelos was still proven wrong. His party would lose the next election and Greece would try to regain German favor. With the familial connection some German support should allow them to stop Bulgarian ambitions from turning things ugly for some time. Still the Balkan would remain a powderkeg and I think Metaxa would still come to power.
Serbia: Horrific, is a nice term for their fate. For all the blood lost they have nothing to show. A-H would not try to annex it, the supporters of this idea were always a minority and after that war they would not want to bear the cost of restoring it. Famine, death, anarchy. The country would be devastated and no support or anything would be provided to help them out nor other regions to exploit. It will be a non-factor for a decade, if not more. Constant troubles and bad things happening inside its borders.
Britain: Business as usual. The Irish War of Independence would still happen. Their Empire would still exist and the diplomatic game would start anew. I think relations with France would be the worst by far. Considering they would not be a loser just not the ultimate victor of the war, they could shoulder the aftermath. I don't see big upheavals coming their way. Maybe try to establish their own alliance or sow discord in the victorious one by competing with Germany in OTE, Bulgaria and Russia. Or align closer with A-H in the Mediteranean against Italy or just to strenghten the position of A-H compared to Germany.
Another possibility is a closer alignment to the US or with Japan. Either way their more independent parts of the Empire will likely want to have a word with them regarding some changes.
Could you name one ethnic uprising in the 20th century that endangered A-H before WW1? Could you even name one during it? And I am not talking when the military breakdown happened. I don't know how often this has been refuted on this forum, again and again. A-H was not some crumbling nation, failed state or tearing itself apart.
"Aha! This problem that was demonstrably manageable proves that Nationalism would be the death of A-H!"
No. Miss me with that false gotcha.
Not really no. The outsourcing of Internal Security concerns to the non-common forces meant that the Common Army was unusually bad at COIN ops.
A-H was not a nation, so obviously there was no national loyalty to it. Dynastic loyalty on the other hand...
The same ones who understood that their Kingdom would cease to exist should A-H fail? Even the 48ers had come to terms with Vienna after 1906.
"We are happy when Škoda has business" -leader of the Young Czechs regarding the 1915 Naval Program. That's the reality of it. Before the war all of the nationally oriented parties had abandoned independence and often even autonomy in favour of pork-barrel politics.
It's almost like the war needs to go significantly better for the CP for the CP to win 🤔
Speaking of, the only actual rebellion A-H faced during the War, the Green Cadres, was socio-economic in nature (or they were just bandits, academic opinions vary) rather than nationalist. It's almost like economic-institutional collapse better explains the fall of A-H than the "force" of nationalism.
You're welcome for the correction on something you had said twice in this thread.
Which is it? Did I imply it or did you assume it?
ignorant: "objectively speaking the nationalists were merely the ones best positioned to take advantage of the economic and institutional collapse of A-H."
nuanced: "nationalism was pretty much a force at the time"
Ok then~
Don't put words in my mouth.
Last edited:
kham_coc
Banned
What would doom AH in a late victory, is the fact that by this point, the Austrians wanted to be Germans.