Otl, America was the great haven during the great war, and didnt enter, as Germany promised (and fulfilled) compensation for the lusitania incident, and the Zimmerman telegram was immediately thought to be a desperate British hoax.
And so, September 9th, mere months after Russia's early departure France and Britain agreed to talk terms.

Germany was sympathetic to Italy-and indeed they'd been making progress against austria, so they got off with merely some reparations.

But France, Britain and Belgium?
France was forced to create an independent Corsica, give up their colonies in asia, cede most of eastern france well beyond Alcase-Lorraine (I'm American and know it as the thing it was for centuries, shoot me) and the reparations... ooh boy.

Britain was forced to leave the middle east, all of it went to the ottomans except the Suez that was now german, cede british central and eastern Africa to Germany, leave ireland, and their navy was limited severely. Naturally most of the dominions left the empire soon after.

Belgium was torn into two duchies that were joined into Germany's new imperial block, each getting some of the kongo, but germany got the lions share.

Frankly is it any wonder britain and Austria became fascistic as France collapsed and became a sovietesque republic across the next 20 years before it came to a head in ww2?

How much of that could've been avoided if America had joined? Either side: does an early cp victory avoid the messy world of otl's Treaty of Aachen, or does america join the entente and preserve britain and France's place in the sun?
 
The Commune of France was actually a really decent place and quite progressive. USSR didn’t like them because it wasn’t their flavor of communism and man, Fascist Britain drove out Canada quickly. Australia stood with them... which is how we got the Australian Civil War, the mistreatments of the Aboriginals and the continent divided into several nations. The US weren’t happy about that and even less so when they saw the parallels

German could barely hold on to their African colonies and pretty much most of them slipped out of it when the Great Depression hit. Ethiopia took the whole Horn of Africa before making vassals out of the rest of East Africa.

The Mittelafrika Project was the a goddamn miracle in how well it turned out despite everything turning against it though this probably because the Germans put their socialists there to get them out of the way and the academics actually managed to get an accord there when German couldn’t hold onto their possessions. Hence the Mittelafrika Confederation (they still haven’t decided on a new name.)

Alcase-Lorraine would be returned to France because of French resistance fighters and as part of the concessions for the Commune fighting on the Allies.

The Ottoman Empire became BFFs with the German Empire and pretty much the only rival they have is the Shahdom of Greater Iran, and that’s cause Iran annexed Afghanistan, Baluchistan and some of the former Russian middle eastern nations (everything but the Kazakhs) with American help.
 
The Commune of France was actually a really decent place and quite progressive. USSR didn’t like them because it wasn’t their flavor of communism and man, Fascist Britain drove out Canada quickly. Australia stood with them... which is how we got the Australian Civil War, the mistreatments of the Aboriginals and the continent divided into several nations. The US weren’t happy about that and even less so when they saw the parallels
.
I mean it certainly helped kickstart the civil rights movement in the mid 30s when vets of all races were coming back after volunteering in Australia and were reporting on the genocidal camps White Australia was running, so despite all the bloodshed and the horrors australia denies to this day, some marginal good came of it
 
I mean it certainly helped kickstart the civil rights movement in the mid 30s when vets of all races were coming back after volunteering in Australia and were reporting on the genocidal camps White Australia was running, so despite all the bloodshed and the horrors australia denies to this day, some marginal good came of it

Well, the attempts at camps anyway. The Aboriginals retreated to the Outback and the Australians lacked the infrastructure to try and massacre the Aboriginals. However, the attempt was still there and Australia got divided up into several pieces.

Austrailia’s denialism is only exceeded by the Ottoman’s on the Armenian genocide though even Germany has called them out on that.

Though that reminds me of the Ainu who managed to survive Japan’s own shannigans. The USA did not take Japan ditching them for fascist Britain well.

It’s why they proceeded to focus double
on rebuilding the Republic of China, which is pretty much the USA’s BFF outside of Canada and Mexico.

That and the Ainu Republic on Sakhalin being close to the US. A lot of Japanese-Americans had to flee to Canada to avoid persecution and while FDR did work for good reimbursements, still a dark spot.
 
Britain was forced to leave the middle east, all of it went to the ottomans except the Suez that was now german, cede british central and eastern Africa to Germany, leave ireland, and their navy was limited severely. Naturally most of the dominions left the empire soon after.
And India gained its independence in the post-war era as well, which was probably the most humiliating loss of all as Vallabhbhai Patel's Republic of India became Germany's BFF in Asia.
 
And India gained its independence in the post-war era as well, which was probably the most humiliating loss of all as Vallabhbhai Patel's Republic of India became Germany's BFF in Asia.
Yeah, I didn't include that one because it happened around 32, after the Mosleyite Coup in 30, since it was definitely interwar, not something of the treaty
 
And India gained its independence in the post-war era as well, which was probably the most humiliating loss of all as Vallabhbhai Patel's Republic of India became Germany's BFF in Asia.

Republic of India? Aren't the the Bharat Federation by now? But yeah, their bromance with Germany is similar to China's bromance with the Americans. I'm looking to see what happeend to everyone else. Spain... well the Francoists got ousted by the Republicans and supproted by the French communists (the Germans actually told Franco to mroe or less fuck off when they asked for help XD). Portugal went similar and Brazil as well, though that was a bit troublesome when the indigenous clashed with them. US chose the indigenous over Brazil's commies. The Americans were surprisingly okay with the socialists since they probably saw what was going on in the UK and did not like the parallels.

The US never got a socialist president (come close admittingly), but the presence kinda settled in gradually
 
Last edited:
And India gained its independence in the post-war era as well, which was probably the most humiliating loss of all as Vallabhbhai Patel's Republic of India became Germany's BFF in Asia.

Which india?

The muslum one, the hindu one or the Seik one?
 
Republic of India? Aren't the the Bharat Federation by now? But yeah, their bromance with Germany is similar to China's bromance with the Americans. I'm looking to see what happeend to everyone else. Spain... well the Francoists got ousted by the Republicans and supproted by the French communists (the Germans actually told Franco to mroe or less fuck off when they asked for help XD). Portugal went similar and Brazil as well, though that was a bit troublesome when the indigenous clashed with them. US chose the indigenous over Brazil's commies. The Americans were surprisingly okay with the socialists since they probably saw what was going on in the UK and did not like the parallels.

The US never got a socialist president (come close admittingly), but the presence kinda settled in gradually

America had a massive surge in European immigrants during and after the war (and honestly nativism was weak because everyone knew what awaited them in europe), hence the shift too what was then called the left that we're still living with

With this and the statification of the northern and southern Philippines, cuba, puerto rico, is it any wonder America has really reclaimed the "empire of liberty" moniker? Not that the German Empire is bad- after the British and the Internationalle fell in the 40s they really reformed and have left the worst parts of imperialism behind them.

And yea the main socialist party, the ASC (american socialist convention) never got too many votes because they have advocated for isolationism and dont have a unified social base, leaving voters without a confident idea of what they can expect.

Ooc: ww2 was started when Germany finally had enough of the French inciting rebellion in the colonies. Britain moved to reconquer their own empire while Germany was distracted. The Americans got involved basically per otl.
 
Last edited:
America had a massive surge in European immigrants during and after the war (and honestly nativism was weak because everyone knew what awaited them in europe), hence the shift too what was then called the left that we're still living with.

But after the news of the actions japan took against the Ainu and what was left british africa acting against liberia, there came about a new sort of white man's burden.

Japan was annexed, according to then president Eisenhower because:
"If Kyoto is to commit these acts of horror to their people, then it is Washington's right and duty to do what it takes to prevent these horrors. This is not old colonialism, we will build and develop the islands like any state, but as of now we cannot trust that leaving will not harm the people of japan, and we cannot keep our law and order over another nation."

With this and the statification of the northern and southern Philippines, cuba, puerto rico, and even japan, across the next fifteen years, however, even the most patriotic American can see why detractors would call it colonial.

And yea the main socialist party, the ASC (american socialist convention) never got too many votes because they have advocated for isolationism and dont have a unified social base, leaving voters without a confident idea of what they can expect.

OOC: I already mentioned Japan was in a special relationship with England so they weren’t annexed. I mentioned Ainu was a protectorate of sorts
 
America had a massive surge in European immigrants during and after the war (and honestly nativism was weak because everyone knew what awaited them in europe), hence the shift too what was then called the left that we're still living with

With this and the statification of the northern and southern Philippines, cuba, puerto rico, is it any wonder America has really reclaimed the "empire of liberty" moniker? Not that the German Empire is bad- after the British and the Internationalle fell in the 40s they really reformed and have left the worst parts of imperialism behind them.

And yea the main socialist party, the ASC (american socialist convention) never got too many votes because they have advocated for isolationism and dont have a unified social base, leaving voters without a confident idea of what they can expect.

Ooc: ww2 was started when Germany finally had enough of the French inciting rebellion in the colonies. Britain moved to reconquer their own empire while Germany was distracted. The Americans got involved basically per otl.

OOC: Also, I notes Germany lost East Africa to Ethiopia and Kongo became a Confederation.

Unless you’re talking about Indochina
 
OOC: Also, I notes Germany lost East Africa to Ethiopia and Kongo became a Confederation.

Unless you’re talking about Indochina
Ooc: indochina works but honestly I thought that the kongo had become a constituent kingdom of the German empire because I was tired when I read your thread response. But they do have other colonies regardless
 
Ooc: indochina works but honestly I thought that the kongo had become a constituent kingdom of the German empire because I was tired when I read your thread response. But they do have other colonies regardless

OOC: Germany had plans for some sort of Mittelafrika thing, but they did little with their African colonies and somehow gaining more would just make it super hard to keep track of. Hence why during the chaos, the opportunists came in and Ethiopia becoming a great power
 
Just reflecting on the US military.

There was a lot of interest & examination of the doctrines, tactics, operations and weapons by the US Army & Navy. Had the US been directly involved I'd predict the examination and adaption would have been narrower and more focused on that of the US allies. While influenced that would have been very different than with closely working with a ally. Given the politics and prewar alignments I'd make a wild guess about the largest technology exchange for the US Army would with a French ally, and the largest for the Navy with a British ally.

The more profound change might be a improvement in staff eduction and organization. The Pacific War two decades later showed many fundamental deficiencies in US Army staff functioning. Neither the Spanish American War, the Phillipines Insurrection, the Army participation in the Vera Cruz expedition, nor the Mexican Expedition of 1916-1917 did the Army any credit. There were improvements in the next two decade, but the USN showed a lot more progress than the Army then. Perhaps because the navy continued overseas operations in Latin America and China, and took preparation for War Plan ORANGE seriously.

Participation in the Great War would have gone further in pushing the US Army in improvements in staff training and operations.
 
Just reflecting on the US military.

There was a lot of interest & examination of the doctrines, tactics, operations and weapons by the US Army & Navy. Had the US been directly involved I'd predict the examination and adaption would have been narrower and more focused on that of the US allies. While influenced that would have been very different than with closely working with a ally. Given the politics and prewar alignments I'd make a wild guess about the largest technology exchange for the US Army would with a French ally, and the largest for the Navy with a British ally.

The more profound change might be a improvement in staff eduction and organization. The Pacific War two decades later showed many fundamental deficiencies in US Army staff functioning. Neither the Spanish American War, the Phillipines Insurrection, the Army participation in the Vera Cruz expedition, nor the Mexican Expedition of 1916-1917 did the Army any credit. There were improvements in the next two decade, but the USN showed a lot more progress than the Army then. Perhaps because the navy continued overseas operations in Latin America and China, and took preparation for War Plan ORANGE seriously.

Participation in the Great War would have gone further in pushing the US Army in improvements in staff training and operations.
Honestly I don't know. We never liked having standing armies or really ever cared. The revolution? Infamous for how badly the soldiers were treated, paid, and raised. 1812? Mostly vets or poorly trained volunteers. Civil War? We had to call up volunteers to put down a multistate rebellion. And those were all within a life time of each other. Ww1 wouldn't be good for our boys and wed be a joke for the side we joined. And we probably wouldnt learn our lesson for ww2
 
Difficult to believe there would not have been some improvement. When the Pacific War came it took the Army six months to prepare 50,000 men for overseas service, and a year to make 100,000 ready. The Army fans like to brag about the performance of some elite regiments, but pass lightly over that organizing and staffing even a expeditionary brigade was a challenge. Contrast the US had a combined arms brigade of Marines & a amphibious combat Task Force ready in less than six weeks & was able to deploy 20,000 Marines and 70,000 in ships crews as a expeditionary force inside three months.

...and yes the mobilization for the Pacific War proved once again the bankruptcy of depending on states militias, even if renamed National Guard, and short term volunteers. The 30,000+ officers newly commissioned and National Guard were not bad men, even the large numbers of political appointees had potential. It was the lack of any previous training in military administration and staff work that crippled the Armies mobilization.
 
Top