Do you think the world would be a better place had the CP won WW1?

[MSchock]

By the end of the war A-H was a whole owned subsidiary of the German Empire plus there is a differece between ally and puppet.





Unfortunely we must work with the idea of Mitteleuropa as it been created as his the only data we had, sure RL internal problems of Germany will greatly effect it but this can mean a better...or a lot worse situation.
Mitteleuropa idea was a string of nation dependent by Germany economically and politically to be used as export market and for their raw resources...so no i don't think is the beginning of a beautifull friendships



And this add to the discussion how?



I think that Germany will be looking for her interest first and foremost...and have the nasty habit to try to grab more than can chew.
If B-L treaty and the septemberprogram (even if not an official policy) are an hint, France and Belgium will be in a dire situation and will suffer a Versailles-like peace. A-H and OE will be needed to be propped up for years or decades (and frankly i don't know if it work) and this mean troops and money, the others various nation of Mitteleuropa will need troops as Ukraine demonstrated, without german soldiers they will not last long so? Money and resource will be needed and that will be probably taken from the various puppets exacerbating an already bad situation.



One can find irritating the idea that if the CP win all will be flower and sunshine.

Hi,

to your last point:
no, i never would say that with a CP-win all will be sunshine. But - as was the question: Do you think the world would be a better place (as otl)? - i say plain yes, yes yes.
With germany ultrastrong in central europe any french hope for revanchism is dead as a dodo. With this (similar to past1945) the french can accept their total defeat in two wars and maybe after 40 years something like a friendship will exist. I doubt that french people are different to german people, so with the right treatment (after the "just" harsh treatment by germany against france (from the german pov only, similar to otl french hard treatment after ww2)) this could be a big improvement.

Also, mitteleuropa isn´t mitteleuropa... to say it short, the british propaganda made a lot noise and put a lot lies into the world about it.
Germany will take ressources, but need customers.
About biting to much - again i look from 1871 to 1914... germany was peacefull, its neighbours were save. So i fail to see the "evidence" of genocide, brutal suprression, etc. Sure, poles in posen are still german citicens and the polish empire is - also - dead as a dodo... but i do not see this as an disadvantage. Germany as a nation changed a lot from 1871 to 1914, i do belive it can and will change from 1917 til 1930 or 1940. Also, every "big" nation will shrink because of internal problems.

WW2 is out of discussion,
france is to weak - and this germany will crush any attempt (difference to otl france against germany) with the "needed" military force.
in the east, the vasalls will develop, also the germans will develop. More SPD and Zentrum influence means less junkers. the junkers lost a lot power in the time 1900-1914, still very important, but loosing. After WW1 this will speed up. So you even could see a posen with bilingual education and improvements for polish speaking persons. Is this sure? no, but it is as possible as a hard treatment and between 100x and 1000x more realistic as an genocide in "from krauts boot in the neck weakend slavic people"-scenarios some people speak.

So yes, germany this tl will be a lot nastier as modern germany otl, but it will be less evil as hitlers nazi-regime. Also, it has no need for wars but also is to powerfull for france to strike back. Similar to western germany after 1945.

The chance for a longterm peace in central europe, compared to otl is great.
for italy, if benito comes to power, he has to be carefully. germany do not want italian expansion, some discret hints about german army taking the whole of italy if italy do not play nice can work wonders. A weaker mussolini is another good thing i think.

So, no nazis in germany, no or weak nazis in italy... no genocide(s), no hard crash in germany 1929 (without versailles and german reactions to french occupation, german industries are MUCH stronger, also the german patents in german hands are worth 1500 billion dollars (i read once that this was the worth of em).

Again, if germany is so wealthy and rich the countries around it will improve.
Germany still will act nasty in some cases, just as the other nations acted-

but generally, the world is in any scenario much better as in otl.

the point about what my example add to the discussion:
you mentioned PLANS for after the war. You mentioned some more extreme positions of some german politicans in ww1 otl. You base your opinion about this scenario on this. If i base the opinion about the french behaviour in 1919 on the comments of 1917-politicans and generals i could say "french want to exterminate the germans, take the german soil left of the rhine, destroy germany as a nation, give the areas west of the rhine to different nations to supress the surviving germans.

If i would do this, i would absoulty unfair bring france into a picture worth the "Nazi-behaviour-award". But this would be wrong. Same is true about some planes and discussions about post-cp-victory. Just think about this example.
White is not allways white and black is not only black. Mostly grey in the world.

 

[kalamona]

If one were to be cynical, this is basically the definition of the EU today.

If you take a look into the last 1000 years of central europe, the germans were always an integral part of it. As a nation, as individuals, sometimes dominating, sometimes not, but always as an integral part. Economic connections were always present, and it pretty much seems, always will, and dependecy (well, usually mutual) were always on the table.
(Guess who was the second most important trade partner of WP Hungary after the SU - well, from a point of view, more important than the SU - well, the BDR.)

Beautifil friendship or not, the harsh reality is that the central european region was always dependent of germany economically, and most of the time, it was profitable for both parties.

 

[lukedalton]

If one were to be cynical, this is basically the definition of the EU today.

Yes you are right, Germans troops have just suppressed a demonstration in Rome about Italy leave the EU.
Cheap irony aside, the EU is a voluntary organization with everyone have is voice heared, Mitteleuropa...i don't think so and i don't even tou

Sure, this logic explains how Italy got the prize they were promised by the Entente. Oh, wait...

The negotiations of Versailles were heavily influenced by Wilson (who in that specific case really take the Yugoslavian side), in a reversed role, and as the only player, i don't really expect that Germany will be lenient or restrained...so a second round it will a strong possibiliy, even if Russia and France will face a Nazi style bankrupting rearment, not counting the relationship with the UK, even if chasen by the continent and in possession of the French port Germany can't really do nothing if the Royal Navy is not sunken first so a cold peace is in the future.

Why? They exsisted for centuries before being ended by foreign powers. Why would winning WWI kill the Otomans and A-H?

Do you see the state of affair of the various nations after WWI? And i don't speak for the loser but of the winners, now add ethnic problems and low level insurgery in the new added land and see how the future of the two empire will not be very long. Winning a war is a thing...winning or even surviving the peace especially after something big as the Great War is a much harder task

 

[Mikestone8]

Though even if AH and OE do break up, does that necessarily harm Germany?

If the Magyars declare UDI without Gemany's approval that clears the way for her to be reconciled, at Hungary's expense, with Rumania, Serbia and an indpendent Croatia. After all, none of those peoples had any especial quarrel with Germany per se, but only with AH and with its Hungarian half in paticular.

Likewise with OE. Is there any particular reason for an independent Syria or Iraq to be anti-German?

 

[machine3589]

I could see that. Hungary was worried about its power being diminished through federalism or a tripartate system (Austria-Hungary-Serbia, that kind of thing), which were seen as ways to reform the empire. Hungary could put on the breaks and say "no," leading to the dual monarchy falling apart.

Serbia as the third state? No way. AFAIK there were no plans for directly annexing Serbia, and even then the balance of power in the tripartate system wouldn`t go to Serbia for a series of obvious reasons.

Either way, there was a war plan to surpress Hungary if needed. I doubt the Honved would fight off the K.u.K. army, meaning this conflict need not end the Monarchy outright - even though the chances of exactly that happening are very high.

Hungary could, on it's own, be a significant European power. It was pretty huge:

(Most of modern-day Croatia was part of Hungary -- it isn't too clear on the map.)

Croatia had a very specific status within the Monarchy, and it wasn`t a part of Hungary itself but a part of the lands of the Crown of St. Stephen. And Hungarians barely make a plurality in that bloated mass; look at Horthy`s Hungary for a better view of what Hungary would look like after the fall of the Monarchy.

Yes you are right, Germans troops have just suppressed a demonstration in Rome about Italy leave the EU.

Why would German troops have to do that in Mitteleuropa states when the local militia will be more than capable of doing that?

By what you are saying, you think Mitteleuropa will look like the Warshaw Pact. Even if we take that for granted, the Warshaw Pact didn`t implode on the USSR for 46 years.

The negotiations of Versailles were heavily influenced by Wilson (who in that specific case really take the Yugoslavian side), in a reversed role, and as the only player, i don't really expect that Germany will be lenient or restrained...so a second round it will a strong possibiliy, even if Russia and France will face a Nazi style bankrupting rearment, not counting the relationship with the UK, even if chasen by the continent and in possession of the French port Germany can't really do nothing if the Royal Navy is not sunken first so a cold peace is in the future.

The fate of the Austrian part of the Monarchy wasn`t decided in Versailles, but in Saint-Germain.

And Germany not being lenient leeds to France and Russia being way too weak to threaten it; Germany will have taken extremely important industrial regions from both, meaning they don`t have the means to rearm even remotely like the Nazis.

Yogi`s scenario (especially the territorial concessions) leaves them in a state where they could threaten Germany in the future, if certain actions are taken, but his scenario leaves little political will for revanche. Basically, when in a position to start a revanche, the Neo Entente* probably won`t do it, but when they would want to do it, they wouldn`t be in a position to do so.

Do you see the state of affair of the various nations after WWI? And i don't speak for the loser but of the winners, now add ethnic problems and low level insurgery in the new added land and see how the future of the two empire will not be very long. Winning a war is a thing...winning or even surviving the peace especially after something big as the Great War is a much harder task

Which states are you talking about here?

 

[lukedalton]

Serbia as the third state? No way. AFAIK there were no plans for directly annexing Serbia, and even then the balance of power in the tripartate system wouldn`t go to Serbia for a series of obvious reasons.

Either way, there was a war plan to surpress Hungary if needed. I doubt the Honved would fight off the K.u.K. army, meaning this conflict need not end the Monarchy outright - even though the chances of exactly that happening are very high.



Croatia had a very specific status within the Monarchy, and it wasn`t a part of Hungary itself but a part of the lands of the Crown of St. Stephen. And Hungarians barely make a plurality in that bloated mass; look at Horthy`s Hungary for a better view of what Hungary would look like after the fall of the Monarchy.

Why would German troops have to do that in Mitteleuropa states when the local militia will be more than capable of doing that?

It's called sarcasm. Second ok go for the local militia...the fundamental things will not change

By what you are saying, you think Mitteleuropa will look like the Warshaw Pact. Even if we take that for granted, the Warshaw Pact didn`t implode on the USSR for 46 years.

But in the end imploded, after invading two nations and suppress revolts and having for some decades some resitance groups; and thanks the universe the end has been really smooth (relatevely speaking), without a ideology like communism behind or a nuclear stand-off like OTL cold war? Things will be probably more messy

The fate of the Austrian part of the Monarchy wasn`t decided in Versailles, but in Saint-Germain.

The fate of the Monarchy was decided when they tried the short victorious war as a mean to solve problem...and things go differently at what (everyone) planned.

And German not being lenient leeds to France and Russia being way too weak to threaten it; Germany will have taken extremely important industrial regions from both, meaning they don`t have the means to rearm even remotely like the Nazis.

Maybe, maybe not...if there is a thing that OTL demonstrated is where is the will there is the strong possibilty that things will be achieved...at least on the short time. The entire success of this scenario like OTL Versailles Treaty is based on the continued enforcing/strong position of the victorious party and in OTL we had seen that all good things have an end or simply they lost their will to fight another war for it or a 1929 analogue or more simply things between junkers and SPD not go well and even a short burst of political violence/instability create a domino effect on all the rest of mitteeuropa

Which states are you talking about here?

Italy? the 'Biennio Rosso' and the fascist takeover
France? Political instability for the next 20 years
United Kingdom? Lost the taste for war for 20 years and the end of the empire begun with the war
Yugoslavia(aka Greater Serbia): a mess resolved only by Tito taking power and make everyone behave.

 

[user23123]

Hungry cannot be the big power in central Europe,demographics ain't on their side,Hungary is landlocked,the role of big power in central Europe is between Poland (not gonna be since is gonna be landlocked and smaller) Yugoslavia ( Don't see the German's creating one) so it remains only Romania and Ukraine with an newly independent Ukraine,and a Romania in the C.P. (in the eventuality that UK is neutral,and France is definite or all-most by 1916)

"The King of Romania, Carol I of Hohenzollern, had signed a secret treaty with the Triple Alliance in 1883 which stipulated that Romania would be obliged to go to war only in the event Austro-Hungarian Empire was attacked" from wiki
And as far as i know Romania was all-most half split between pro CP and pro Allies,and since France will do a lot poorer then otl i suspect the balance of power to tip in favor of CP

 

[machine3589]

It's called sarcasm.

I know, but it was still a point to be raised.

But in the end imploded, after invading two nations and suppress revolts and having for some decades some resitance groups; and thanks the universe the end has been really smooth (relatevely speaking), without a ideology like communism behind or a nuclear stand-off like OTL cold war? Things will be probably more messy

After 46 years! And not because of popular revolts or insurgencies, or military repression, but because of the shitty economic system communism was/is. Frankly, your idea of constant revolts and insurgency makes sense if it was A) the Nazis and B) the Imperium of Man. Sure, the Kaiserreich will never be the benevolent overlord of Europe that will grow flower gardens everywhere and hand out bread by the truckload, but I can`t imagine how it could get worse than the mountain of skulls OTL produced!

And why do you think there won`t be a nuclear stand off? If anything, the world will be more multipolar than OTL, meaning MAD has even greater effect.

The fate of the Monarchy was decided when they tried the short victorious war as a mean to solve problem...and things go differently at what (everyone) planned.

Except the Monarchy didn`t go to war to solve internal problems...

Maybe, maybe not...if there is a thing that OTL demonstrated is where is the will there is the strong possibilty that things will be achieved...at least on the short time. The entire success of this scenario like OTL Versailles Treaty is based on the continued enforcing/strong position of the victorious party and in OTL we had seen that all good things have an end or simply they lost their will to fight another war for it or a 1929 analogue or more simply things between junkers and SPD not go well and even a short burst of political violence/instability create a domino effect on all the rest of mitteeuropa

You didn`t understand what "they don`t have the means to start another war" meant. Look at it like this; without Briey-Longwy, France loses most of its heavy industry and the overwhelming amount of iron ore at its disposal: both vital to making a war machine. And as another member on this very thread remarked, Russia without the Ukraine is crippled industrially, and as a consequence, militarily as well.

Italy? the 'Biennio Rosso' and the fascist takeover
France? Political instability for the next 20 years
United Kingdom? Lost the taste for war for 20 years and the end of the empire begun with the war

Where are the low level insurgencies and ethnic tension?

Yugoslavia(aka Greater Serbia): a mess resolved only by Tito taking power and make everyone behave.

And you don`t think the Kaiser or the Sultan, wielding more power than Tito could have dreamed of, couldn't `t force everyone to behave?

 

[Zaius]

Mitteleuropa idea was a string of nation dependent by Germany economically and politically to be used as export market and for their raw resources...so no i don't think is the beginning of a beautifull friendships

If one were to be cynical, this is basically the definition of the EU today.

I hear the average Greek doesn't seem too happy with Germany right now. Who knows how much this attitude will spread as economic conditions worsen?... And now factor in a considerably more bossy Kaiserreich...

If you take a look into the last 1000 years of central europe, the germans were always an integral part of it. As a nation, as individuals, sometimes dominating, sometimes not, but always as an integral part. Economic connections were always present, and it pretty much seems, always will, and dependecy (well, usually mutual) were always on the table.
(Guess who was the second most important trade partner of WP Hungary after the SU - well, from a point of view, more important than the SU - well, the BDR.)

Beautifil friendship or not, the harsh reality is that the central european region was always dependent of germany economically, and most of the time, it was profitable for both parties.

Good point. But unlike most other time periods over the past 1000 years, a victorious Kaiserreich will be able to directly impose its will on the states it will be trading with.

 

[MSchock]

I hear the average Greek doesn't seem too happy with Germany right now. Who knows how much this attitude will spread as economic conditions worsen?... And now factor in a considerably more bossy Kaiserreich...



Good point. But unlike most other time periods over the past 1000 years, a victorious Kaiserreich will be able to directly impose its will on the states it will be trading with.

maybe... but explain the differences to otl 2013... do you belive belgium or greece could do something against the will of germany, or worse germany and france? the chance for it is nil.
Sure, germany pay a shitload of money for it. But this comes now to an end.
Not surprisingly the other sucsessfull nations agree with germany (finland, netherlands to name two)
Greece is angry cause the party is over. Sadly greece came into the euro-zone... everybody knew they lie, but now they have to pay the price.

in the "mitteleuropa"-zone it would go similar (but also different)
similar in the facts of a common market (with advantages for germany), but also with the common problems.

the problem for so many people of small nations in europe is the simple truth about germany. europe without a strong germany does not work. period
if germany is strong some (like GB who want to rule and dominate europe themself) nations try to sabotage that. I still wonder why the european nations had been so brain dead to allow (no - wait, they BEGGED argh) great britain into the european community.... a second rated fast declining nation that has no interest in the european "idea". We europeans could still have good relations to UK, but they stay on their island and cannot disturb europe. But this is otl-talk.

For this timeline, germany is dominant, but it was dominant in 1871-1914 too. So nobody can say that germany 1917-??? is the brutal tyrann some think it would be. Sure no roses and parfumes and definitly not the stupid "we pay for everything because we are "guilty"-germany of otl", but also not the genocidial massmurderer Xgentis and others wrote, Also everytime much better as otl.
Also, best way would be a fast impressive german victory, similar to 1940 against france, in the west and the serious hint to the tzar to give up before he will be crushed. So peace in the west with france in early 1915, the bef is pow and uk can get back its army or keep the colonies, russia give up balticum and congress poland, everybody is happy (beside the french, belgium (but fast victory means not too much destruction) and esp. great britain.
Okay, the things austria will do with serbia are unpleasant (i think austrian cruelty against serbian civilians are forgotten to often!) but also here less losses as otl.

But for this you need a better plot earlier on, say in 1900 germany expand its army and has a plan for its navy for useful early combats (stop british ships to bring in the BEF)

 

[lukedalton]

After 46 years! And not because of popular revolts or insurgencies, or military repression, but because of the shitty economic system communism was/is. Frankly, your idea of constant revolts and insurgency makes sense if it was A) the Nazis and B) the Imperium of Man. Sure, the Kaiserreich will never be the benevolent overlord of Europe that will grow flower gardens everywhere and hand out bread by the truckload, but I can`t imagine how it could get worse than the mountain of skulls OTL produced!

The shitty economy was even due to the military expediture necessary to keep down the puppet states and all the argument about how this world is better in the end boil down in No Nazi or No communism...well there is nothing who say that other similar ideology will not rise in any parts of the world and cause the same type of damage.

And why do you think there won`t be a nuclear stand off? If anything, the world will be more multipolar than OTL, meaning MAD has even greater effect.

Because frankly i don't even think that will last enough to create a nuclear bomb.

Except the Monarchy didn`t go to war to solve internal problems...

Well they try to get rid of the Serbian problem so to eliminate someone who had mire on the territory and stir slavic unrest and at the same time prop up the goverment

You didn`t understand what "they don`t have the means to start another war" meant. Look at it like this; without Briey-Longwy, France loses most of its heavy industry and the overwhelming amount of iron ore at its disposal: both vital to making a war machine. And as another member on this very thread remarked, Russia without the Ukraine is crippled industrially, and as a consequence, militarily as well.

Yes, and Germany is saddled to basically garrison the entire continent to prop up regime...not a really healthy thing for society and economy.

Where are the low level insurgencies and ethnic tension?

There were not (the ethnic tension)...because the nation i just listed don't have any of that problem, still they faced great economic and social problem, now put this problem in place where there is already problem or etchinc tension and and here we come.
Regarding the insurgencies well...there were not very quiet period in both France and Italy.

And you don`t think the Kaiser or the Sultan, wielding more power than Tito could have dreamed of, couldn't `t force everyone to behave?

Tito used political acume, ruthlesness and an epic quantitative of carisma in quantity that both the Sultan and the Kaiser can only dream...and after he is dead is a miracle that Yugoslavia lasted 10 years before end in a civil war.

 

[machine3589]

The shitty economy was even due to the military expediture necessary to keep down the puppet states and all the argument about how this world is better in the end boil down in No Nazi or No communism...well there is nothing who say that other similar ideology will not rise in any parts of the world and cause the same type of damage.

On what grounds can you claim such a thing? I`m sorry, but I won`t accept "it will get worse because I say it can".

Because frankly i don't even think that will last enough to create a nuclear bomb.

And you are basing this on what, exactly?

Well they try to get rid of the Serbian problem so to eliminate someone who had mire on the territory and stir slavic unrest and at the same time prop up the goverment

Oh, and that whole buisness with Franz Ferdinad had nothing to do with it, right? Just replace "Serbian" with "Italian" and "Rumanian" and ask yourself why those two countries weren`t attacked in 1914.

Yes, and Germany is saddled to basically garrison the entire continent to prop up regime...not a really healthy thing for society and economy

Don`t shift goalposts.

There were not (the ethnic tension)...because the nation i just listed don't have any of that problem, still they faced great economic and social problem, now put this problem in place where there is already problem or etchinc tension and and here we come.
Regarding the insurgencies well...there were not very quiet period in both France and Italy.

But none of them fell apart in a bloody civil war, did they?

Tito used political acume, ruthlesness and an epic quantitative of carisma in quantity that both the Sultan and the Kaiser can only dream...and after he is dead is a miracle that Yugoslavia lasted 10 years before end in a civil war.

Then you really don`t know much about the internal workings of Yugoslavia.

 

[Zaius]

maybe... but explain the differences to otl 2013...

You don't see a difference between today's Germany and the silent-dictatorship-era Kaiserreich?

do you belive belgium or greece could do something against the will of germany, or worse germany and france? the chance for it is nil.

It's also a question of intent. The Kaiserreich considered massive annexations, resettling large populations, etc. At the present stage Germany seems distinctly unwilling to consider similar vindictive acts.

Not surprisingly the other sucsessfull nations agree with germany (finland, netherlands to name two)

In other words, the states which profit from the status quo are pleased about it. Nothing unusual.

Greece is angry cause the party is over. Sadly greece came into the euro-zone... everybody knew they lie, but now they have to pay the price.

I was simply proving that even a benevolent version of Mitteleuropa doesn't guarantee happiness to all its members.

if germany is strong some (like GB who want to rule and dominate europe themself) nations try to sabotage that. I still wonder why the european nations had been so brain dead to allow (no - wait, they BEGGED argh) great britain into the european community.... a second rated fast declining nation that has no interest in the european "idea". We europeans could still have good relations to UK, but they stay on their island and cannot disturb europe. But this is otl-talk.

Oh, come on. When did Britain try to rule Europe last time? If I'm not mistaken, since the Napoleonic Wars only the USSR and Germany ever did.

For this timeline, germany is dominant, but it was dominant in 1871-1914 too. So nobody can say that germany 1917-??? is the brutal tyrann some think it would be.

In 1871-1914 Germany didn't have much of Europe to tyrannize.

Sure no roses and parfumes and definitly not the stupid "we pay for everything because we are "guilty"-germany of otl", but also not the genocidial massmurderer Xgentis and others wrote, Also everytime much better as otl.

Which payments do you refer to, precisely?

 

[NKVD]

Serbia as the third state? No way. AFAIK there were no plans for directly annexing Serbia, and even then the balance of power in the tripartate system wouldn`t go to Serbia for a series of obvious reasons.

Oh yeah, I just got to that part in The First World War by John Keegan. I was just using Austria-Hungary-Serbia as an example -- I'm aware that Serbia was kind of Europe's Iran at the time.

And...thanks for the information, regarding the plans for Hungary. It'll help with the TL I'm working on.

 

[lukedalton]

On what grounds can you claim such a thing? I`m sorry, but I won`t accept "it will get worse because I say it can".

I say it because the Great war mean the destruction of the old order, the old rule basically the entire ruling class (of any nation) lost a great deal if not all credibility, the old system seemed obsolete and need to be changed and after that massacre fringe political system seemed viable so here will not be different...plus human nature

And you are basing this on what, exactly?

In the fact that Germany had to occupy and prop up half continent plus aid the A-h empire vastly overextendid itself and there is the high probability of a cold war -like scenario with the UK so not a really good basis for stability

Oh, and that whole buisness with Franz Ferdinad had nothing to do with it, right? Just replace "Serbian" with "Italian" and "Rumanian" and ask yourself why those two countries weren`t attacked in 1914.

If for Conrad Italy was already invaded and the ultimatum at Serbia was drafted in a manner that Serbia will have refused.

Don`t shift goalposts.

And you don't put much faith in the Kaiserreich, in OTL vastly demonstrated to not be really good in the diplomatic game.

But none of them fell apart in a bloody civil war, did they?

We had come very close and as said we (and the French) don't have ethnic problem and Yugoslavia come close.

Then you really don`t know much about the internal workings of Yugoslavia.

And you don't really know much about how complicated was the situation in A-h.

 

[machine3589]

I say it because the Great war mean the destruction of the old order, the old rule basically the entire ruling class (of any nation) lost a great deal if not all credibility, the old system seemed obsolete and need to be changed and after that massacre fringe political system seemed viable so here will not be different...plus human nature

And this inevitably leads to nazis, communists and ideas of similar destructivity gaining power? Even under considerably different historical circumstances? I don`t think so.

In the fact that Germany had to occupy and prop up half continent plus aid the A-h empire vastly overextendid itself and there is the high probability of a cold war -like scenario with the UK so not a really good basis for stability

So, there will be a cold war, the won`t be a cold war... It`s one or the other, lukedalton.

And it`s a bit much to assume Germany would have to occupy half the continent. Not even the Nazis had to do that to get everyone`s attention.

If for Conrad Italy was already invaded and the ultimatum at Serbia was drafted in a manner that Serbia will have refused.

What? Re-phraze this, please, I can`t understand it. Otherwise, the point still stands.

And you don't put much faith in the Kaiserreich, in OTL vastly demonstrated to not be really good in the diplomatic game.

The issue was weather WW2 could happen here. The reasons I gave why it can`t are factual in nature (i.e. resources and industry), not diplomatical.

We had come very close and as said we (and the French) don't have ethnic problem and Yugoslavia come close.

When did Yugoslavia come close to a civil war? It only fell because when the Germans hit, nobody was wiling to defend it, not because of popular revolt.

And you don't really know much about how complicated was the situation in A-h.

Actually, I think I do; as a member of a nation that was formerly a subject people of the Monarchy, I have been required to learn a fair bit about it in school, high school, and I have had to learn even more about it for my university exams. I learned about how complicated it was allright.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

I came to the conclusion that the World WOULD be a betetr place - for some (the winners)

Others would tell you its wors (the losers)

and others still would think its unchanged (some at least)


From a pure Austrian point of view -
a CP win would possible butterfly away Nazi Germany (Austria)

Alone this would make the world much easier for Germany and Austrians

Example - if someone says: That greedy yew... then if its an average American, Chinese or even our standard European - the worst he will face is possible be nmed unsensible and maybe accused of a bit of racism.

But if hes an Austrian or GErman he instantly becomes a (neo)nazi - and in extreme cases might also go to jail...

I don't complain - Germans and Austrians deserve it (in a way), but not having it would be a big blessing for us

Maybe because of this we are so eager ti imagine what if - we WON...

Sore others also committed (and commit) atrocities - they usually are not as blamed as we are (clooetively - the ones who commit those crimes are, but not the "whole" population - why ist this so, pronbably because we came sOOOOO close in suceeding to spread out rule throughout Europe (so close is still not good enough - fortunately)