East first! Europe after a German / CP victory in 1916

If anything, it will likely scrap all its pre-dreads and older protected cruisers as a money-saving device to make room for the final Bayerns and Mackensens coming online.
Agreed. With the probably-inevitable post-war economic slump there's going to be even less funds for a naval expansion, I would think after the Beyerns and Mackensens are finished the Kaiser could be easily persuaded to stop listening to Adm. Tirpitz and that's all Germany needs to maintain local dominance over France and/or Russia for the time being. They should have already learned the lesson of trying to compete with British shipbuilding industry by 1912 (if I remember correctly) and wouldn't want to try that again. With Anglo-German relations already on the mend before the war and with Britain maintaining a position of strong neutrality during the conflict, I would expect common ground to be found with Britain over the shared interest of making lots and lots of money!
 
I would not say "unified" - France and Russia still exist as major (hostile) independent powers, albeit significantly damaged. Italy is also a rattling loose piece on the chessboard...
You're right in that Germany's control over the continent wouldn't be nearly that tight, but I still think London would regard the post-war order with a lot of alarmism and exaggeration. You're also right in that I wasn't considering the influence debt would play on Germany's post-war policies, internal and external.

For that matter, I have to wonder what would happen to Germany's politics with a 1916 victory. Was that Junker stratocracy fully in place yet, or does the SPD still have a hope of forcing change through?
 
May I try an other shot in a possible future post TTL Great war?

The war cost in human lives was tremendous. Never saw humanity a carnage of this scale.
The young men returning from the front and the hundred of thousand mutilated men and or traumatized men had a profound impact on the societies of the former belligerents.
In all countries an art form called surrealism become popular or some sort of halicunant realism came up . Next to this style other art styles become more mainstream or were newly evolved. These new art styles could be found in all forms of art, painting, sculpture, literature, photography, motion pictures and architecture.,
Especially in France and in lesser extent in Russia a whole generation of mostly young men, embittered due their experiences from the front. In France due to the almost disregard of human losses and arrogance of the military leaders who sent ordinary French men in to a kind of grinding machine as part of their absurd military doctrine of massive assaults . A doctrine which after a week fighting already seemed to be pointless, to every sensible man.
The same occurred in Russia albeit a bit later due to the troubles after the armistice. Soon they were called "les hommes en colère" , the angry young men, who start to ignore authority and the so called natural order of social classes, lot of hem started to dress different as well, and created this way a new phenomenon which was called a youth movement, although most people were in heir twenties. In France the "les hommes en colère" clashed violently with the revanchist movement, a movement similar as after the defeat of the Franco-Prussian war, but the revanchist lost their momentum this time and were lost in obscurity after a decade.
This new flow, or movement soon spread out as well in Germany and parts of the Austrian- Hungarian Empire and eventually to other countries not involved with the conflict.
In Germany Otto Dix become one of the most well know painters, who graphicly showed the horrors of the front and the treatment on the survivors after the war.
Although the name suggest, "les hommes en colère", it were not only young men it also compromise young women who had to work the land and the factories in dread full circumstances in order to provide the former factory workers on the front with food and ammunition'.
 
Last edited:
So what becomes of the Ukraine in this timeline? Would we still see Imperial Germany pursue a Projekt 47, Projekt 47a, and especially a Projekt 50?

Ukraine remains part of Russia. Since the Russian state is not collapsing, as in OTL, Ukraine will not declare itself independent. It will likely be given autonomy, depending on how Russia develops. It could remain Russian to this day.
 
Aviation, a possible near future after this Great European war....

Although the conflict saw the first large scale use of aero-plane scouts which during the conflict were equipped with ever sophisticated armament. Eventually evolving in the first purpose build fighter in 1915 as the Fokker Eindecker. The potential of the airplane was not fully used in the conflict. At the very mobile East front the few airplanes remained primary used as scout and for artillery's observation.
At the West front the airplanes were a bit more frequent used and saw the emerge of the fighter. At the end of the conflict it were primary the French who started to experiment with larger airplanes who were able to carry bombs, converted artillery grenades, in a desperate attempt to break the German defense lines.

The limited use of this new thing like heavier than air airplanes did not mean there were no men who saw the potential of this machine.
Especially in Germany, the big winner of the conflict, not hampered by treaty restrictions and home of quite a lot of promising aeronautical engineers and entrepreneurs.
There for it was not a military conflict who accelerated the development of this new means of transportation but good old fashion capitalism and economic competition.

DELAG, acronym for Deutsche Luftschifffahrts-Aktiengesellschaft (German for "German Airship Travel Corporation"), was the world's first airline to use an aircraft in revenue service. It operated a fleet of zeppelin rigid airships manufactured by the Luftschiffbau Zeppelin Corporation. Its headquarters were located in Frankfurt, Germany. DELAG was founded on 16 November 1909 as a commercial passenger-carrying offshoot of Zeppelin Luftschiffbau.
By July 1914, one month prior to the start of the First World War, DELAG's Zeppelins had transported a total of 34,028 passengers on 1,588 commercial flights; over these trips, the fleet had accumulated 172,535 kilometres across 3,176 hours of flight.
DELAG's zeppelin fleet was pressed into service to aid Germany's war effort. LZ 11, LZ 13, and LZ 17 were all operated by the German Army.
Following the conflict's end, DELAG quickly set about relaunching its commercial zeppelin operations.
Initially, the company intended to use the both new and more aero dynamic LZ Bodensee and LZ Nordstern to help reconnect the German cities. The renewed domestic lines were quickly expanded by more European cities. By 1921 there were regular flights between Berlin-London with stop-overs at Dusseldorf and Rotterdam. But as well to Rome, Madrid and Lisbon. The in the first half of the 20ties build LZ Nordsee and LZ Mittelmeer, larger versions of the Bodensee and Nordstern were the first who started intercontinental lines to Brazzaville with a stop at Duala.

The success of these airships encouraged aircraft designers as Hugo Junkers and Claude Dornier, to design and construct heavier than air aircraft who tried to compete with these DELAG airships, with every aircraft model they build with increasing speed, reliability and luxury.
The aircraft designs of these men and other aircraft manufacturers like Fokker spurred the need for ever more powerful and reliable aircraft engines.
Junkers saw a successful line of aircraft designs who increased in size from the small all metal Junkers J 1 and F-13 to the single-engine G.24 and three-engine G.31 and four engine Junkers G.38.
And eventually in the enormous four-engine 80-passenger plane, incorporating a forward canard wing, as well as a main wing, both of which were fitted above twin pylons. Called the Junkers J.1000 Super Duck passenger seating was to be provided both in the main wing and the hull sections of the craft.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b1/6b/18/b16b18e931f114b916d3f707482ed732.jpg
Junkers J1000

Dornier focused on ever larger and luxury fly boats with in 1924 the Dornier Do X series , first flight in 1924 as temporary zenith.
All these heavier than air aircraft successfully compete the larger and slower airships and by the start of the 30ties, also due to the enter of the very sophisticated USA airline designs by Douglas and Boeing,. Although DELAG build several ever larger and luxury airships during the twenties and early thirties, it lost more and more market share over the airliners who used airplanes and could only compete in transatlantic lines to New York and Buenos Aires.
 
Last edited:
I see Britain as being one of the big winners here.
No million men lost, better relations with the Empire (no Empire troops lost), no huge loss of unrecoverable loans, or massive war expenditure.
Lots of money made selling stuff to France and other powers, no massive loss of her merchant fleet.
Without those losses, no financial crisis, no Washington Naval treaty which crippled the Royal Navy.
Probably aquired a lot of the world trade that the European powers had to let go while concentrating on armaments.

One other question though. Will this butterfly away the Spanish Flu epidemic?
 
I see Britain as being one of the big winners here.
No million men lost, better relations with the Empire (no Empire troops lost), no huge loss of unrecoverable loans, or massive war expenditure.
Lots of money made selling stuff to France and other powers, no massive loss of her merchant fleet.
Without those losses, no financial crisis, no Washington Naval treaty which crippled the Royal Navy.

Absolutely. No question about it.
 
Will this butterfly away the Spanish Flu epidemic?
I would say 'no', simply because its origins and the role the trenches served as an incubator is still pretty nebulous. It's entirely down to @Helmuth48 on how it plays out but my gut instinct is to have it happen broadly as OTL. At the very least this does mean that The Great Flu is NOT going to be called the Spanish Flu, since there's no reason to suppress reporting on it in 1917/18 when it first begins.
To the best of my knowledge the flu started in the USA, then spread across to Europe via troop ship. Simply replace the troop ship with a regular steamer and the effect is the same. With early reporting the spread might be a bit slower than OTL, but the virulence and severity of the nasty stuff means that's just shuffling dates and numbers around a bit.
 
I see Britain as being one of the big winners here.
No million men lost, better relations with the Empire (no Empire troops lost), no huge loss of unrecoverable loans, or massive war expenditure.
Lots of money made selling stuff to France and other powers, no massive loss of her merchant fleet.
Without those losses, no financial crisis, no Washington Naval treaty which crippled the Royal Navy.
Probably aquired a lot of the world trade that the European powers had to let go while concentrating on armaments.

One other question though. Will this butterfly away the Spanish Flu epidemic?

I agree with @GrahamB . The Spanish flu was not caused by the war, at most the war caused a faster spread. It was mainly young people who died of the flu. Conditions in the trenches were ideal for the spread. That is why there were many casualties among the soldiers.

Without the troop transports between America and Europe, it might have taken a little longer for the virus to spread around the world.
 
I agree with @GrahamB . The Spanish flu was not caused by the war, at most the war caused a faster spread. It was mainly young people who died of the flu. Conditions in the trenches were ideal for the spread. That is why there were many casualties among the soldiers.

Without the troop transports between America and Europe, it might have taken a little longer for the virus to spread around the world.
Could it not be named the Kansas flu? It is though it originated from this USA state?
 
Last edited:
Well you reduce the number of spreaders considerably. If you only have „regular“ ship traffic across the Atlantic we are talking 1/10th of the people. Also you do not have a lot of young men in barracks together to start the spreading sent them in ships packed together again to barracks.
All those were perfect conditions from a flu‘s point of view and have just been butterflied. Also the respreading via returning soldiers would simply not have been there.
So it would be hard to guess exactly but Kansas in 1918 ITTL is surely not the best place if you plan on a virus killing as many people as possible.
 
Last edited:
I think the slower spread (and less people weakened by late-war privations) would reduce the death toll quite a bit. Hospitals are more able to cope, the longer things go on the better the doctors get at ameliorating the symptoms, and so on. It will still be the Great Killer Flu, but not as bad as it was OTL.
Starting in America might have some interesting butterflies with regard to peoples feelings towards the USA. Not their fault, but people don't think like that.
 
Yes, the flu first broke out in Kansas, so "Kansas flu" is a better name. Or just the "American Flu"!
I'm rather fond of the generic 'Great Flu', but only because 'Spanish Flu' was a form of diversionary shaming. 'We don't have a problem, it's only Spain that's having a problem, it's a Spanish problem, Spain who isn't even a Great Power any more, THE WAR IS GOING FINE!' was very much a motivation for the early reporting of the outbreak. With the war already over and the delayed spread out of the USA, reporting should be more nuanced since nobody's got a reason to brush it under the rug.
So yes, I would expect some pooh-pooh-ing about the 'poor colonials Americans can't even handle a little flu' from the more conservative members of European high society, and hence the name 'American Flu' or just 'the 1918 Flu', but once the virus starts jumping borders it'll rapidly become 'The Great Flu' since there isn't a vested interest in diverting blame nor downplaying the severity of the disease.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Well you reduce the number of spreaders considerably. If you only have „regular“ ship traffic across the Atlantic we are talking 1/10th of the people. Also you do not have a lot of young men in barracks together to start the spreading sent them in ships packed together again to barracks.
All those were perfect conditions from a flu‘s point of view and have just been butterflied. Also the respreading via returning soldiers would simply not have been there.
So it would be hard to guess exactly but Kansas in 1918 ITTL is surely not the best place if you plan on a virus killing as many people as possible.
I think the slower spread (and less people weakened by late-war privations) would reduce the death toll quite a bit. Hospitals are more able to cope, the longer things go on the better the doctors get at ameliorating the symptoms, and so on. ...
I think I would agree here : THIS Flu might still be around bust due to above mentioned argumenst and changed conditions much less fast in spreading and much lesser people inflicting.
There will be "break-outs" and "hotspots" but the most efficient means to reduce spread and numbers infected were actually well known :
quarantine and isolation​

This is an article comparing somewhat the endemic behavior of Covid-19 and the "Spanish Flu" based on a this research report. Unfortunatly it compares data from US american cities only.
Bottom line :
Overmortality in New York with early on implemented "lock-down" measure was significantly reduced compared to (larger) cities that did only later and more ... slowly.
With some knowledge of some epidemic happening in US of A I would render it quite possible passengers crossing the atlantic might find themself booked for an additional fortnight of quarantine camp-holiday.

What in return greatly reduces spreader running free and gives time to the european health services to adopt. ... and create/prepare quarantine and isolation measure esp. in the larger cities.
 
Huh. This is interesting!

The big story here is Britain: their neutrality here is plausible enough, but the outcome is going to be the worst fears of a lot of their leadership realized: France and Russia are defeated and resentful, and Germany is in power on the continent and feeling on top of the world. In the most direct terms, this is probably fine; the British avoided the costs of war, probably profited from armaments manufacturing, and can look forward to Germany as a large market for British goods and a source of high-tech imports. But the cost is a considerably weaker political position.

Without joining the war, though, they're going to have to figure out the Ulster Crisis, and things could get extremely ugly. The immediate future for the UK is going to be about the Empire, both near in Ireland, and far in Africa and Asia, where it's going to find itself removed from any French challenges. The big project for them might be in China, now in the warlord era after the collapse of the Qing dynasty. Mao's side is going to be very different without the Russian Revolution, and there may be an Anglo-Japanese Alliance to establish some kind of stable structure, possibly with Sun Yat-Sen? It's chaotic enough that I really don't have a great sense of what might happen: China and Japan did both join the Entente OTL, but likely wouldn't here if they're both losing and don't have the British and Americans. They'd likely stay neutral, but there are some opportunities to gain ground at the expense of Russia and France, as both are floundering.

There's a lot of major fiasco potential there, though: China is in a long-term civil war, with an unsteady pseudo-republic oscillating between various governmental forms, with numerous foreign concessions already in place and warlords getting more and more powerful.

Meanwhile, I think the biggest problem in Central Europe is going to remain Serbia, partitioned between AH and Bulgaria, and taking the blame for the whole war. I think that Austria-Hungary could survive with various reforms *otherwise*, but bringing Serbia under its direct rule is going to be a nightmare, and Bulgaria is immediately going to be destabilized in this scenario. The military and financial strain of administering the Balkans are, I think, what sets up Austria-Hungary as the place most likely to see a large-scale Communist revolution in the aftermath here, despite being a victor, and especially with the Russian Revolution avoided and its exiles remaining in Vienna and other parts of the area. The Revolution may well fail to actually topple the Habsburgs and start a Soviet Republic, but it's going to be a massive problem and one that the monarchy probably won't be able to survive in the current form.

And if we're talking about chaotic actors, what is to become of Italy? Gabriele D'Annunzio will have missed his chance to get involved in a massive European war, though I wouldn't entirely rule him out as a foreign volunteer in France. But there's going to be a lot of troublemaking among the Italian residents of Austria-Hungary, without a clear outlet. I'd also guess that Italy will be a new favorite of the UK, seeking to hold on to some influence in Europe, and it might start competing with France in North Africa, depending on how bad it all lands in France.

It will be VERY bad in France, I think, and like so much else, with a high possibility of real chaos. 1871 was humiliating enough, now their big chance for revenge was thwarted with the massive failure of the French military in a fruitless advance that killed the flower of French youth. I think this leads more towards a Fascist, militaristic government than a Communist one, though it's hard to predict how it would go. They're going to be intensely anti-German and anti-British (abandoned in our hour of need!) but I don't know what they can *do* with that. The overseas empire is going to be rattled with defeat, too, so I think you get a picture of a very heavily militarized, very heavily nationalist regime coming into place. Possibly less motivated by racial theory, and not necessarily more antisemitic than OTL. But not pleasant. Maybe you would see a dominant Integralist movement, blaming secularism for France's weakness. This is the era of Rene Guenon already, so Traditionalism was finding its footing in non-Catholic contexts, but it might find a syncretic way forward, mixing with esoteric movements like Martinism.
 
Without joining the war, though, they're going to have to figure out the Ulster Crisis, and things could get extremely ugly.
Agreed, although without the war as an excuse to put implementation on indefinite hiatus, at least the Home Rule bill will (probably) actually come into effect. That'll ease tensions in Ireland a fair share, or at least make the situation in Ulster an 'Irish Problem London' MPs won't have to worry about anymore.

Seriously, I've never understood the institutional antipathy towards Ireland from England's Parliament. At the very least with Home Rule in effect and with France's prestige so in the dumps, the usual 'we can't let the Irish make decisions for themselves, they might [insert inconvenient act here]!' will fall right down the priority list now that they're actually looking after their own affairs.
 
Huh. This is interesting!

The big story here is Britain: their neutrality here is plausible enough, but the outcome is going to be the worst fears of a lot of their leadership realized: France and Russia are defeated and resentful, and Germany is in power on the continent and feeling on top of the world. In the most direct terms, this is probably fine; the British avoided the costs of war, probably profited from armaments manufacturing, and can look forward to Germany as a large market for British goods and a source of high-tech imports. But the cost is a considerably weaker political position.

Without joining the war, though, they're going to have to figure out the Ulster Crisis, and things could get extremely ugly. The immediate future for the UK is going to be about the Empire, both near in Ireland, and far in Africa and Asia, where it's going to find itself removed from any French challenges. The big project for them might be in China, now in the warlord era after the collapse of the Qing dynasty. Mao's side is going to be very different without the Russian Revolution, and there may be an Anglo-Japanese Alliance to establish some kind of stable structure, possibly with Sun Yat-Sen? It's chaotic enough that I really don't have a great sense of what might happen: China and Japan did both join the Entente OTL, but likely wouldn't here if they're both losing and don't have the British and Americans. They'd likely stay neutral, but there are some opportunities to gain ground at the expense of Russia and France, as both are floundering.

There's a lot of major fiasco potential there, though: China is in a long-term civil war, with an unsteady pseudo-republic oscillating between various governmental forms, with numerous foreign concessions already in place and warlords getting more and more powerful.

Meanwhile, I think the biggest problem in Central Europe is going to remain Serbia, partitioned between AH and Bulgaria, and taking the blame for the whole war. I think that Austria-Hungary could survive with various reforms *otherwise*, but bringing Serbia under its direct rule is going to be a nightmare, and Bulgaria is immediately going to be destabilized in this scenario. The military and financial strain of administering the Balkans are, I think, what sets up Austria-Hungary as the place most likely to see a large-scale Communist revolution in the aftermath here, despite being a victor, and especially with the Russian Revolution avoided and its exiles remaining in Vienna and other parts of the area. The Revolution may well fail to actually topple the Habsburgs and start a Soviet Republic, but it's going to be a massive problem and one that the monarchy probably won't be able to survive in the current form.

And if we're talking about chaotic actors, what is to become of Italy? Gabriele D'Annunzio will have missed his chance to get involved in a massive European war, though I wouldn't entirely rule him out as a foreign volunteer in France. But there's going to be a lot of troublemaking among the Italian residents of Austria-Hungary, without a clear outlet. I'd also guess that Italy will be a new favorite of the UK, seeking to hold on to some influence in Europe, and it might start competing with France in North Africa, depending on how bad it all lands in France.

It will be VERY bad in France, I think, and like so much else, with a high possibility of real chaos. 1871 was humiliating enough, now their big chance for revenge was thwarted with the massive failure of the French military in a fruitless advance that killed the flower of French youth. I think this leads more towards a Fascist, militaristic government than a Communist one, though it's hard to predict how it would go. They're going to be intensely anti-German and anti-British (abandoned in our hour of need!) but I don't know what they can *do* with that. The overseas empire is going to be rattled with defeat, too, so I think you get a picture of a very heavily militarized, very heavily nationalist regime coming into place. Possibly less motivated by racial theory, and not necessarily more antisemitic than OTL. But not pleasant. Maybe you would see a dominant Integralist movement, blaming secularism for France's weakness. This is the era of Rene Guenon already, so Traditionalism was finding its footing in non-Catholic contexts, but it might find a syncretic way forward, mixing with esoteric movements like Martinism.
This is all a bitt too much gloom and doom.... which is a much made AH time frame....thinking the way things went in OTL during the interbellum was an inevitable course of events, but which of course never is.
I also read the, nearly, classic AH modus that France, losing the Great War will decline is a Fascist dictature, or communist one. The same can count for the idea of a nearly inevitable rise of a Mussolini kind of dictator or an other grieved Italy.
According to the Berlin treaties of TTL France are relative mild treated, and despite the North East cantons it is nearly untouched by destructions of the war.
As for Italy, they were not invited in the conflict, and due to this they did not had to suffer the massive casualties as they did in OTL and above all, since there is no war the treasury is not wrecked.
I do not know much of the UK but, why should they not be contemplated with the Empire they have and try to develop it more in order to make the overseas possession more profitable. At the end this was the goal of having overseas possession's. It only will encounter some economic paradoxes during the next decades, since Indian production and manufacturing will be more than competitive with UK production and manufacturing.
You might be right with China, how ever why should the UK flip China for Nippon. By the way Germany was better connected with China than the UK. As practical example was the equipment of the Chinese nationalist army.
The UK will however extend it interest in the Middle East, since it seemed this is the place were the valued commodity of the 20th century is burred. This will un doubtly led to conflict with the Ottoman Empire.
 
Last edited:
Top