(DBWI)What if entente won the great war?

So, While browsing youtube i found one interesting fellow who made an interesting take on such overdid PoD. What if entente won ww1? Link in case you want to see.

In his TL, He averted the great capitulation of russia by making tsar embrace more reformist idea and not being massive jerk by sparing the socialist protestors but at the same time this made the german feared the russian jugglenaut and decided to go west instead

Due to successful push on the western fornt and extensive spy network across tje british colonies, Germany successfully depraved british of their colonial resources and sent one of british-german scholars named Oswald Mosley to incite rebellion and succeed

But because of the effort to destroy the western enemies, They neglected the long stagnant eastern front and for that they failed to defend themself from Savinkov's human wave tactic. And Russia pacified Europe in 1920 but not without cost

Because of the debts aquired during war and lend-lease that was never paid back, Russian populance finally lost their last straw and was swayed by National-Populist patrisan named Iosef who led an national uprising that ended in abolition of monarchy in russia and declared anew Russia state

Fast forward to 1940 where Russia state finally achived primacy over other european state and lead their pan-slavic pact to victory against socialist japan and radical britain

At the end of TL through, He became lazy and killed this majestic TL with joke-democracy victory

This is such a letdown, But overall its pretty solid TL. But i would like to hear your take/criticism.
 
I can say this TL is absolute ASB based on one fact alone: the author tries to have his cake and eat it too in bringing down the British and French Empires for the sake of a Russia-wank without taking into account Russia staying in the war REQUIRES huge constant supplies of industrial imports and loans from Western Europe. Forget not being able to pay back it's losns: Petrograd would have never gotten them in the first place, especially without the Ottomans cutting off the Black Sea exports she depended on for a decent balance of trade.

Russia capitulated in 1916 not because of "social unrest", but because the treasury was empty and her bonds were better used as fish wrap so far as New York or London were concerned.
 
Strictly speaking, this isn't a DBWI.

Britain really wasn't that close to a socialist or communist revolution. With more German victories on the Western Front, the British at most would have just gone home. They would have either kept fighting, with American support, or done a Peace of Amiens style truce and rebuilt an anti-German alliance. That was pretty much the playbook they followed or considered following against Napoleon and Hitler.

Russia on the other hand was really close to revolution in 1914, when there were mass strikes, and had been through one just nine years earlier. Fear of a revolt if they were seen as backing down to the Central Powers in the July Crisis was a major reason why they went to war in the first place. You have to change so much to get the communist revolution in London instead of St. Petersburg that you will wind up butterflying away the war itself.

Now I think its possible to make the "Russian steamroller" actually happen, though again this most likely requires a pre-1914 POD (extensive peacetime reforms in the Russian Army so its quality is close to that of the German Army, or just push the war back a couple of years to allow them to finish their military expansion). But that just screws Germany and Poland. It doesn't lead to a weaker Britain and France.
 
I know I have said this before but if Germany had continued unrestrictive submarine warfare it could have brought America in on the side of the entente, and there was the Zimmerman incident where one prominent german by the same name had the idea of trying to convince mexico to attack the united states. The general staff instead decided to fire him and stop unrestrictied warfare, because in the words of one german general.

"Germany has enough enemies we do not need new ones."

If they made a different decision it could have cost them the war.
 
@Galba Otho Vitelius

OOC: It kind of hovers on the edge, I'd agree, but it could still qualify. What he's asking is if this alternate timeline theory, which emerged in a CP victory scenario, about a potential Entente victory is viable or not. It's probably more of a Double Blind Plausability Check.

I know I have said this before but if Germany had continued unrestrictive submarine warfare it could have brought America in on the side of the entente, and there was the Zimmerman incident where one prominent german by the same name had the idea of trying to convince mexico to attack the united states. The general staff instead decided to fire him and stop unrestrictied warfare, because in the words of one german general.

"Germany has enough enemies we do not need new ones."

If they made a different decision it could have cost them the war.

After the Sussex Pledge? Admiral Terpitz was literally the lone voice on the war council who backed the continuation at any point post-1915, and of course he would for proffesional reasons: there's no glory in having your service spend the war doing nothing more than snarling threateningly in the harbor. Germany's adherance to the Hauge Convention in the later half of the war (not that they were giving up much, having been driven from the seas and the U-boats being unable to effectively pursue submerged and vulnerable on the surface) was near spotless, which was vital to getting the international pressure on the UK to stop the "rationing" of imports to the neutrals under pressure from the Western Hemisphere nations and so the gradual loosening of the blockade in general. This was what ultimately allowed for the compromise peace in spring of 1917 following the capture of Verdun and breakthrough into Veneto.

As for the Zimmerman rumor, that was an idle suggestion of a contingency plan that the British post-war revisionalists fabricated into some kind of conspiracy to make their own under the table diplomacy look not so bad in comparison to the American public. (I'm looking at you, "Bullion for Beduons")
 
Top