If the Central Powers Win WWI, How Likely is WWII to Eventually Occur?

CaliGuy

Banned
If the Central Powers win World War I, how likely is WWII to eventually occur/break out?

As for my own thoughts on this, in addition to looking at the post-WWI peace settlement in this TL, we should also see whether or not a victorious Imperial Germany would be able to build nuclear weapons before its enemies (likely Russia plus Britain plus the U.S.) feel sufficiently confident that they can win a new World War against Germany. (For the record, I am presuming that a victorious Germany will feel sufficiently confident to try increasing its influence in the Western Hemisphere--as a part of Kaiser Bill's Weltpolitik--and thus to piss off the U.S. in the process.)

Basically, a Central Powers WWI victory might result in Brest-Litovsk-style territorial losses for Russia (since the logic of Brest-Litovsk--specifically weakening Russia in order to reduce its potential as a future threat and competitor to Germany--will still be there even without Hindenburg and Ludendorff and without the Bolsheviks). This (which includes the loss of oil-rich Baku; indeed, the large oil reserves in Siberia weren't discovered yet), combined with the loss of French loans (due to the loss of ion ore-rich Briey-Longwy as well as due to the war reparations that Germany will force France to pay), will cause Russia to need a lot of time to recover as well as to seek large-scale loans from elsewhere--very possibly from Britain and/or from the United States. In turn, this means that--short of a collapse in Germany itself--Russia will be unlikely to seek revenge on Germany in a Central-Powers-WWI-victory scenario for a while (due to its weaker strength relative to Germany). (Also, for the record, even if the Bolsheviks are still able to come to power in Russia in 1917 in this TL, I am presuming that Germany will quickly overthrow them if/after it wins WWI in this TL.)

Of course, an interesting question is this--after it becomes clear that Persia and/or Saudi Arabia has a lot of oil, would Germany be willing to (with the help of its Ottoman allies, that is) try conquering these areas before they fall under Russo-Anglo-American influence? Indeed, even without the oil factor, having Germany conquer Persia would create a ring of pro-German states around Russia stretching from the western border of China (specifically Afghanistan) to the Gulf of Finland (specifically Finland and the Baltic states)!

Also, when do you think that Germany will successfully develop nuclear weapons in this TL? After all, if Germany develops nuclear weapons too late in this TL, a recovered Russia could--with British and/or U.S. support--spark a new war with Germany to kick Germany out of the territories that it had previously acquired at Brest-Litovsk!

Anyway, any thoughts on all of this?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Indeed, interestingly enough, the anti-German bloc after the end of this TL's WWI might look very similar to our TL's anti-German bloc in WWII--specifically a bloc consisting of Russia, Britain, and the U.S. as the biggest players. Of course, I wonder which bloc Japan will side with in this TL.

Any thoughts on this?
 
Nothing is innevitable till happen, depends, if France and Russia re-arm when Germany is busy with itself and the other central powers too and depend what Britain will do.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
What are the circumstances for the CP victory?
For one, you can have the Germans avoid resuming USW and thus having Wilson stick to his commitment to cut off loans to the Entente; thus, the Entente powers run out of money and Germany wins WWI on the Western Front by default, after which point Germany wins WWI on the Eastern Front and acquires Brest-Litovsk-style territorial gains (in order to permanently weaken Russia).
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Nothing is innevitable till happen, depends, if France and Russia re-arm when Germany is busy with itself and the other central powers too and depend what Britain will do.
Germany won't let France rearm; indeed, Russia is probably a different matter due to its massive size.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Seems the USA didnt' enter the war and got a quick win in the spring offensive.
Sort of; basically, in this TL, Germany doesn't resume USW and thus Wilson sticks to his pledge to cut off loans to the Entente powers. Thus, the Entente powers run out of money and thus Germany ends up winning WWI on the Western Front by default--after which point Germany wins WWI on the Eastern Front.
 
I think the example of WW2 shows that the WW1 conception of power was way off.

WW2 showed all you needed for power was domestic industry and population, large tracts of land were way less important (you could always conquer the specifics you need, if they're beyond your borders). Whichever way WW1 ends, it's unlikely to more-seriously hurt Russia than WW1+RCW already did, and Britain and the USA are right out.

Sure, for a decade or two, the winner determines the flow of reparations, and France/Belgium are actually at risk of losing serious industry in a German victory, but if they want, the Russians COULD have a rematch by 1940 (unless the Germans win so big they can prop up a puppet in Russia). Odds are, IMO, a bit lesser - Russia will want the Ukraine back, and would like other WW1 losses back, but it could do perfectly well without them; but then the same counts for post-WW1 Germany, so meh.

France will probably be out as a serious challenger, though. So a western WW2 sounds rather unlikely; Britain, Germany and the USA can squabble perfectly well via proxies and trade wars and targetted embargos, while a full-out war plays against their strengths. Britain being strong at sea but also running insane risks, while Germany is bound to lose a naval war but can make Britain also-lose; and the USA is simply too far off (a proxy war over Venezuela, sure, but a full blown world war? Not even the WW2 Japanese would consider that a good idea).
 

Deleted member 1487

Seems the USA didnt' enter the war and got a quick win in the spring offensive.
Looks like you're right:
For one, you can have the Germans avoid resuming USW and thus having Wilson stick to his commitment to cut off loans to the Entente; thus, the Entente powers run out of money and Germany wins WWI on the Western Front by default, after which point Germany wins WWI on the Eastern Front and acquires Brest-Litovsk-style territorial gains (in order to permanently weaken Russia).
That would shatter France and pretty much prevent them from becoming anything more than a regional partner at Germany's command after that. Russia would be a mess and unlikely to be strong enough to challenge Germany for a while, Germany would be overextended, so the B-L would likely fold up in many areas. I'm assuming H-L are in charge, it would be interesting to know why they don't do USW again. Britain won't want another war going forward, the US probably won't care. Germany has what it wants, it's more a question of do they have the strength to make it work. They would have the strength to sit on France and keep some of B-L, but A-H would likely have a lot of problems and Italy...who knows what they do. If they lose they probably fight a civil war or the Socialists take over due to the government being discredited.

I don't think WW2 is necessarily likely, but region conflict, perhaps between Germany and Russia might be. I don't think Britain wants another war and France will be incapable due to how Germany will conduct it's peace there.
 

Deleted member 1487

the Russians COULD have a rematch by 1940 (unless the Germans win so big they can prop up a puppet in Russia). Odds are, IMO, a bit lesser - Russia will want the Ukraine back, and would like other WW1 losses back, but it could do perfectly well without them; but then the same counts for post-WW1 Germany, so meh.
Unlikely. Russia would be incredibly weakened without Ukraine; Ukraine wasn't simply their breadbasket, it was also a huge industrial region and the Urals didn't become what they became IOTL until the 1930s-40s. Any Russia sans Ukraine in the 1920s-40s will have a ton of problems. If B-L sticks everywhere then Russia will be a net food importer, not exporter and that was one of their major exports. Without the Caucasus good bye oil.
The thing is Germany is not strong enough in 1918 to make an independent Ukraine stick, nor hold the Caucasus, especially if the Ottomans want in. They could hold Poland, the Baltics, make sure Finland is independent, and probably parts of Ukraine break off and do their own thing, but that's about it given that A-H will be a mess and France needs attention.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I think the example of WW2 shows that the WW1 conception of power was way off.

WW2 showed all you needed for power was domestic industry and population, large tracts of land were way less important (you could always conquer the specifics you need, if they're beyond your borders). Whichever way WW1 ends, it's unlikely to more-seriously hurt Russia than WW1+RCW already did,

Russia won't reacquire Baku and Ukraine after the end of WWI in this TL, though.

and Britain and the USA are right out.

Can you please clarify this part?

Sure, for a decade or two, the winner determines the flow of reparations, and France/Belgium are actually at risk of losing serious industry in a German victory, but if they want, the Russians COULD have a rematch by 1940 (unless the Germans win so big they can prop up a puppet in Russia). Odds are, IMO, a bit lesser - Russia will want the Ukraine back, and would like other WW1 losses back, but it could do perfectly well without them; but then the same counts for post-WW1 Germany, so meh.

Russia might want Baku back very badly, though; after all, Siberian oil hasn't been discovered yet.

France will probably be out as a serious challenger, though. So a western WW2 sounds rather unlikely; Britain, Germany and the USA can squabble perfectly well via proxies and trade wars and targetted embargos, while a full-out war plays against their strengths. Britain being strong at sea but also running insane risks, while Germany is bound to lose a naval war but can make Britain also-lose; and the USA is simply too far off (a proxy war over Venezuela, sure, but a full blown world war? Not even the WW2 Japanese would consider that a good idea).

Frankly, I am tempted to agree with all of this.

However, what if Germany, say, successfully pressures its Ottoman allies to invade Persia and/or Saudi Arabia in order to secure its oil? How would Russia, Britain, and the U.S. respond to such a German-Ottoman move?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Looks like you're right:

Yep. :)

That would shatter France and pretty much prevent them from becoming anything more than a regional partner at Germany's command after that. Russia would be a mess and unlikely to be strong enough to challenge Germany for a while, Germany would be overextended, so the B-L would likely fold up in many areas.

What about "folding up" the B-L Treaty by making Ukraine genuinely independent--with its own army and everything--rather than a German puppet? After all, this will still keep Russia weak while allowing the German Army to only be called into Ukraine if there is actually an emergency; plus, it would make the Ukrainians like rather than hate the Germans! :)

I'm assuming H-L are in charge, it would be interesting to know why they don't do USW again.

Because Kaiser Bill has enough brains and willpower to overrule them.

Britain won't want another war going forward, the US probably won't care. Germany has what it wants, it's more a question of do they have the strength to make it work. They would have the strength to sit on France and keep some of B-L,

Actually, if Britain and the U.S. refuse to provide large amounts of loans to Russia, I could see Russia being permanently reduced to its B-L borders; after all, Germany can spare its manpower by allowing countries such as Ukraine to be genuinely independent rather than merely German puppet states.

but A-H would likely have a lot of problems

Sure, but if A-H implodes, Germany can simply create a bunch of friendly/puppet states in its place.

and Italy...who knows what they do. If they lose they probably fight a civil war or the Socialists take over due to the government being discredited.

OK.

I don't think WW2 is necessarily likely, but region conflict, perhaps between Germany and Russia might be. I don't think Britain wants another war and France will be incapable due to how Germany will conduct it's peace there.

Frankly, if it's a regional war between Germany and Russia, I just can't see Russia winning against a victorious Germany. I mean, I could understand Russia winning if Britain and/or the U.S. help it out, but alone? No, I don't think so!
 

CaliGuy

Banned
That not exist, even if UK keep figthing ottomans would got a chance to readquire the holy cities, plus germany might explore easy the oil in what is otl iraq
I meant the territories that are currently Saudi Arabia in our TL.
 
I meant the territories that are currently Saudi Arabia in our TL.
That is still a battlezone field can end anywhere, ottomans would reclaim if CP won as part of the peace treaty, Iran might not Like UK as that is the end of Anglo Iranian but USA might still be isolationist and not give a damn, maybe even pressure to early Tariff act and presure more exploration in texas and Dakotas.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Unlikely. Russia would be incredibly weakened without Ukraine; Ukraine wasn't simply their breadbasket, it was also a huge industrial region and the Urals didn't become what they became IOTL until the 1930s-40s. Any Russia sans Ukraine in the 1920s-40s will have a ton of problems. If B-L sticks everywhere then Russia will be a net food importer, not exporter and that was one of their major exports. Without the Caucasus good bye oil.

Yeah, the loss of oil-rich Baku will certainly severely cripple Russia until Siberian oil is discovered--at which point Germany might already have nuclear weapons!

Also, though, is Russia a net food importer right now in our TL?

The thing is Germany is not strong enough in 1918 to make an independent Ukraine stick, nor hold the Caucasus, especially if the Ottomans want in. They could hold Poland, the Baltics, make sure Finland is independent, and probably parts of Ukraine break off and do their own thing, but that's about it given that A-H will be a mess and France needs attention.

Actually, I'm not so sure about that; after all, Germany and the Ottomans can share the Caucasus and Ukraine can become a genuinely independent state rather than merely a German puppet state--thus freeing up a lot of German troops for use elsewhere.
 
You might eventually get another war with Russia but another world war is actually pretty hard to pull off in this scenario, France and Russia are broken and Germany has a ridiculous amount of stuff on its plate, no one is even going to want a major war for a quite a while
 

CaliGuy

Banned
You might eventually get another war with Russia but another world war is actually pretty hard to pull off in this scenario, France and Russia are broken and Germany has a ridiculous amount of stuff on its plate, no one is even going to want a major war for a quite a while
Yeah, France and Russia might want revenge; however, France will be too weak to do this and so will Russia if it is unable to find a new source of large-scale loans (and won't have a Stalin to help it industrialize without such loans!).
 
Top