Entente Victory in a Central Powers victorious world

In a scenario where the Central Powers won WW1, how and what will the world think of an Entente victory? Will the world think of an Entente victory as impossible as the Central Power and Axis victory threads criticized as impossible here or something which is possible? Does it matter if the Central Victory has a pre-1914 pod or a 1918 pod and does it depend on the speculating nation in question?
 
Last edited:

Garrison

Donor
In a scenario where the Central Powers won WW1, how and what will the world think of an Entente victory? Will the world think of an Entente victory as impossible as the Central Power and Axis victory threads criticized as impossible here or something which is possible? Does it matter if the Central Victory has a pre-1914 pod or a 1918 pod and does it depend on the speculating nation in question?
The difference is the resources available to the two sides, the Entente had far more resources available to it than the Central Powers, so an Entente victory would probably be seen as far more plausible. I think a defeat for the Entente will be seen as a catastrophic failure by the French in particular on a par with 1940 IOTL.
 
There will be hot tears shed over the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Jews in pogroms by a White Russian government, ad AHs made up about how many jewish lives would have been saved if only the Entente had won.
 
There will be hot tears shed over the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Jews in pogroms by a White Russian government, ad AHs made up about how many jewish lives would have been saved if only the Entente had won.
I don't think the White Russians would have won in a Central Powers victory scenario either. They were a lot more anti-German than the Bolsheviks.
 

Garrison

Donor
There will be hot tears shed over the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Jews in pogroms by a White Russian government, ad AHs made up about how many jewish lives would have been saved if only the Entente had won.
Assuming no Holocaust scale mass murder I suspect it would be largely ignored as antisemitism would have remained mainstream.
 
The difference is the resources available to the two sides, the Entente had far more resources available to it than the Central Powers, so an Entente victory would probably be seen as far more plausible. I think a defeat for the Entente will be seen as a catastrophic failure by the French in particular on a par with 1940 IOTL.
Of course this depends on how the Entente lost. If Germany went east first, and Britain stayed neutral, then I don't think an Entente victory would be seen as very plausible. People would point out how much of a mess Russia was and look at the third Republic's internal political issues (justifiably with the former, less so with the latter) and probably say there was no way they could win.

On the other hand if Britain entered the war, with or without a German invasion of Belgium, I think an Entente victory would be seen as highly plausible because Britain would probably not have experienced a crushing defeat. They'd be humiliated by losing on the European mainland, but they wouldn't be forced to sign anything like OTL Treaty of Versailles.

If you diverged more and went with pre-war changes in geopolitics, and got the USA to join the Central Powers, then I think an Entente Victory would be seen as implausible, unless you also had the CSA running around.
 

Garrison

Donor
Of course this depends on how the Entente lost. If Germany went east first, and Britain stayed neutral, then I don't think an Entente victory would be seen as very plausible. People would point out how much of a mess Russia was and look at the third Republic's internal political issues (justifiably with the former, less so with the latter) and probably say there was no way they could win.

On the other hand if Britain entered the war, with or without a German invasion of Belgium, I think an Entente victory would be seen as highly plausible because Britain would probably not have experienced a crushing defeat. They'd be humiliated by losing on the European mainland, but they wouldn't be forced to sign anything like OTL Treaty of Versailles.

If you diverged more and went with pre-war changes in geopolitics, and got the USA to join the Central Powers, then I think an Entente Victory would be seen as implausible, unless you also had the CSA running around.
True, but with those last options you have to rewrite so much history that I doubt you get a recognizable WWI.
 
Will the world think of an Entente victory as impossible as the Central Power and Axis victory threads criticized as impossible here or something which is possible?
Depends on the nature of the war, if we propose OTL, but if France collapses ala 1940 (in 1914) and then the Germans trash the Russians (and Italy/Romania/US don't join), yeah I would think so.

Does it matter if the Central Victory has a pre-1914 pod or a 1918 pod and does it depend on the speculating nation in question?
Yes. The earlier, the more likely it's seen as 'inevitable' if for example we are positing OTL, but the German army gets expanded instead of the last Naval law and this extra force concentration smashes the French lines (Eg, SPGs/Tanks/APCs/Trucks) in a western Tannenberg, it would to me be seen as inevitable that the qualitatively and quantitively superior Heer would win in France, and consequently rupture the blockade, keep Italy from joining (at least on the Entente side) and then be able to turn their full power to deal with Russia - Given that it is then very unlikely that GB could do anything that's materially important for the central struggle, with the possible exception of the Dardanelles, but it seems likely that there would be sufficient excess German combat power to render the Bosporus unusable even if that succeeded, and consequently I don't think anyone would think it would materially alter the outcome of the Eastern front.

Whereas if we are talking about a 1918 PoD (with or without the US) then clearly it wouldn't be seen as inevitable.
 
Depends on the nature of the war, if we propose OTL, but if France collapses ala 1940 (in 1914) and then the Germans trash the Russians (and Italy/Romania/US don't join), yeah I would think so.


Yes. The earlier, the more likely it's seen as 'inevitable' if for example we are positing OTL, but the German army gets expanded instead of the last Naval law and this extra force concentration smashes the French lines (Eg, SPGs/Tanks/APCs/Trucks) in a western Tannenberg, it would to me be seen as inevitable that the qualitatively and quantitively superior Heer would win in France, and consequently rupture the blockade, keep Italy from joining (at least on the Entente side) and then be able to turn their full power to deal with Russia - Given that it is then very unlikely that GB could do anything that's materially important for the central struggle, with the possible exception of the Dardanelles, but it seems likely that there would be sufficient excess German combat power to render the Bosporus unusable even if that succeeded, and consequently I don't think anyone would think it would materially alter the outcome of the Eastern front.

Whereas if we are talking about a 1918 PoD (with or without the US) then clearly it wouldn't be seen as inevitable.

In other words, an Entente victory will be easier to speculate on with a Central Powers victory scenario having a pod after the US joined WW1 (late 1917 or 1918 pod) than before the US joined WW1 (early 1917 and butterflying US intervention in WW1 and any pod before 1917), right?
 
In other words, an Entente victory will be easier to speculate on with a Central Powers victory scenario having a pod after the US joined WW1 (late 1917 or 1918 pod) than before the US joined WW1 (early 1917 and butterflying US intervention in WW1 and any pod before 1917), right?
Yes.
 
Top