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

One would assume after WWI OTL that Germany would be too weak to start WWII as well. But they did.

Against a firm coalition of Britain, France and the US they were too weak, but that coalition was weakened soon after the war and unable to stop Germany from increasing its power with annexations and an economic alliance with the Soviets.

After a CP victory Germany will be strong against the rest of Europe in a way a coalition can never be.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
It's because of the German war aims. The Germans will certainly grab Breiy-Longwy and its coal / iron reserves which absolutely kneecaps French industry. Anything else Germany takes in the west is just icing on the cake.
That, and the massive war reparations which Germany will likely force France to pay.
 
That, and the massive war reparations which Germany will likely force France to pay.
Germany had massive war reparations, the French took Alsace-Lorraine, and the Saar coal mines, occupied the Rhineland, had limits on the size of the German military.

And yet Hitler was able to rebuild. There is absolutely no reason to say France couldn't do the same. Especially as it is unrealistic to say France's colonial empire would be dismantled in any significant manner. Germany is unlikely to be able to put on France even half as harsh a treaty as Versailles.
 
it is unrealistic to say France's colonial empire would be dismantled in any significant manner. Germany is unlikely to be able to put on France even half as harsh a treaty as Versailles.

Why is this? France and Britain have been defeated, how can they avoid getting a harsh peace that means they lose colonies?
 
Why is this? France and Britain have been defeated, how can they avoid getting a harsh peace that means they lose colonies?
Uh... because that's not how history works... such harsh peaces like Versailles are rare. Being defeated doesn't mean unconditional. Especially given the circumstances. An unconditional harsh peace on Britain in wwi is most definitely ASB as Germany would have zero leverage. And the Entente still has conquered the German overseas colonies, and no you cant change that, that kind of pod is either ASB or requires a PoD that happens decades before and makes WWI not even WWI as we know it.
 
Uh... because that's not how history works... such harsh peaces like Versailles are rare.

No it doesn't, total war against radicalised populations are what's rare but in those wars punitive peace settlements are pretty much standard, its were we get terms like Carthaginian Peace and Pyrrhic Victory from.

An unconditional harsh peace on Britain in wwi is most definitely ASB as Germany would have zero leverage.

It most certainly is not! The Germany Army occupying northern France would put the German Navy in Brest, Cherbourg and Le Havre. THAT is leverage!

And the Entente still has conquered the German overseas colonies, and no you cant change that, that kind of pod is either ASB or requires a PoD that happens decades before and makes WWI not even WWI as we know it.

So after 3 or 4 years of war ending with defeat of France and the BEF in the field Britain will suffer blockade conducted by the world's 2nd biggest navy from ports perfectly located in northern and western France and cross Channel artillery and air bombardment to keep Togo?
 
Germany had massive war reparations, the French took Alsace-Lorraine, and the Saar coal mines, occupied the Rhineland, had limits on the size of the German military.

And yet Hitler was able to rebuild. There is absolutely no reason to say France couldn't do the same. Especially as it is unrealistic to say France's colonial empire would be dismantled in any significant manner. Germany is unlikely to be able to put on France even half as harsh a treaty as Versailles.

1. Briey-Longwy contained some 85% of French Iron ore. It is more important than Alsace-Lorraine would ever be to Germany. You will also note that Hitler rebuilt the German army when the Rheinland was not occupied anymore and the Saarland was reunited. So Germany still had a lot of resources available within their own borders.

This is a different situation than Briey-Longwy, which if annexed is lost to the French basically forever.

2. Germany had a bigger population than France, and given that Germany still had a rising population after WWI while France had a stagnant one, the gap would even widen, and that is assuming the German parts of Austria-Hungary don't get annexed in the case of a collapse of the Monarchy, which would mean that Germany would absolutely tower over the French in recruitable population.

3. Hitler was able to maintain his breakneck rearmament programme partly by looting his early conquests to keep Germany afloat and gain necessary materiel (ever notice how many Czech tanks Germany used in 1939.-1941.?). France has no one to loot in their vicinity.

4. Added to that is the possibility that suffering two humiliating defeats against Germany in fifty years might make the French less willing to risk another national catastrophy curtesy of the Boche.
 

Deleted member 1487

Germany had massive war reparations, the French took Alsace-Lorraine, and the Saar coal mines, occupied the Rhineland, had limits on the size of the German military.

And yet Hitler was able to rebuild. There is absolutely no reason to say France couldn't do the same. Especially as it is unrealistic to say France's colonial empire would be dismantled in any significant manner. Germany is unlikely to be able to put on France even half as harsh a treaty as Versailles.
Hitler rebuilt AFTER the Saarland was returned (1935) and the Allies had left the Rheinland (gone in 1932) while the French demonstrated no interest is acting when Hitler declared rearmament publicly; prior to that he ran through Germany's very limited foreign currency reserves to lay the foundation for rearmament. He also had Hjalmar Schacht come up with a bunch of barter deals and went heavily into debt all over Europe prior to the war.
So France would lack the ability to do any of what Germany did IOTL without Germany backing down; they would annex Briey-Longwy, not just hold it for 15 years; they were strong enough never to let France openly rearm, nor could France go into debt to do so like Germany did IOTL even with British help, they were just too economically weak in comparison to German to compete for markets and leverage suppliers. Germany IOTL was just too strong to keep down, France would be even weaker than IOTL and wasn't strong enough to compete with a Germany ITTL that had won and expanded it's economy.
 
Germany had massive war reparations, the French took Alsace-Lorraine, and the Saar coal mines, occupied the Rhineland, had limits on the size of the German military.

And yet Hitler was able to rebuild. There is absolutely no reason to say France couldn't do the same. Especially as it is unrealistic to say France's colonial empire would be dismantled in any significant manner. Germany is unlikely to be able to put on France even half as harsh a treaty as Versailles.

Germany had a bigger economy (and more industry) than France and a larger and younger population increasing at a faster rate that would inevitably increase the economic gap even more. The treaty artificially weakened Germany to an "acceptable" level to satisfy the immediate concerns of the Entente, it did not remove the reasons that made Germany naturally stronger than France at the time.

Yet, just to estabilish parity with them, Hitler drove the german economy to the ground for three full years and, even with the addition of Austria and Bohemia, the germans were still generally outnumbered during the Battle of France. France can't replicate the pace of german rearmament in any way and would be stomped in a war of atrition against a victorious kaiserreich.
 
You can't remotely compare post ww1 Germany with this time line's France.
Even if they were the same German industry was basically untouched by the war while France's was demolished.
 
This is so ridiculously wrong.
Then refute. Just look at German industry, population growth, and natural resources and you'll find that while a far right government could very well come into power in France, they would almost certainly fail spectacularly against the German Empire. Germany had the potential to come back after both world wars, and did despite crippling peace terms. France won both, and her economy and population growth remained stagnant, while still well below Germany's.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The Germans needed oil not just in the long term, but ASAP. In exchange for that promise, they were able to demand 25% of Baku's oil output (among other concessions) from the Bolsheviks.
Also, out of curiosity--what exactly were these other concessions?
 
Also, out of curiosity--what exactly were these other concessions?

Other than Baku oil, the most important ones were:
-The Soviets have to pay 6 billion marks as "indemnity";
-The Soviets renounce sovereignty over Estonia and Livonia (they had been occupied by Germany for months by then, but the previous treaties hadn't formally detached them from Russia yet); thus allowing Germany to proceed with the creation of the Baltic Duchy;
-The Soviets recognize the independence of Georgia, which was Germany's protectorate. Armenia and Azerbaijan theoretically stay a part of Russia (although in practice this was obviously not the case);
-The Soviets must attack the Entente's forces in northern Russia. If they do not succeed in expelling the Entente and the White Russians there, they must agree to passage of German and Finnish troops.

All this in exchange for Germany's promise to stop backing Finnish territorial claims and any further irredentism against Russia. Germany also promises to gradually abandon its occupation of eastern Belarus in the future.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Other than Baku oil, the most important ones were:
-The Soviets have to pay 6 billion marks as "indemnity";
-The Soviets renounce sovereignty over Estonia and Livonia (they had been occupied by Germany for months by then, but the previous treaties hadn't formally detached them from Russia yet); thus allowing Germany to proceed with the creation of the Baltic Duchy;
-The Soviets recognize the independence of Georgia, which was Germany's protectorate. Armenia and Azerbaijan theoretically stay a part of Russia (although in practice this was obviously not the case);
-The Soviets must attack the Entente's forces in northern Russia. If they do not succeed in expelling the Entente and the White Russians there, they must agree to passage of German and Finnish troops.

All this in exchange for Germany's promise to stop backing Finnish territorial claims and any further irredentism against Russia. Germany also promises to gradually abandon its occupation of eastern Belarus in the future.
Wow! All of that seems like a great deal for Germany! :D
 

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.
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.
Question--would a collapse of A-H really be that bad for a victorious Germany if its various successor states will be pro-German?
 

Deleted member 1487

Question--would a collapse of A-H really be that bad for a victorious Germany if its various successor states will be pro-German?
Depends on whether they could pull their weight. None would be really that great on their own, while Germany would need to absorb Austria, which it didn't want to do. Of course post-WW1 IOTL when discussions about banning Austro-German unification were reignited in the 1930 Austro-German customs pact idea, the a French diplomat said to a German banker it would be a disaster for France, because it would mean 40 more German divisions; the German bank replied: and better yet, 1 general staff! Apparently the Frenchman was not amused. Probably in the end it would not be a bad thing to have Anschluss, but the problem is there would be no guarantee that all successor states would be pro-German, able to be controlled, or that the economic zone that was A-H would have any successor in the patchwork of successor states. Plus even a controlled demolition would require major commitments of German troops. The Czechs would be a handful to deal with on their own and the Catholics and Socialists in Austria would not be warmly welcomed by Berlin, nor vice versa.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Depends on whether they could pull their weight. None would be really that great on their own, while Germany would need to absorb Austria, which it didn't want to do. Of course post-WW1 IOTL when discussions about banning Austro-German unification were reignited in the 1930 Austro-German customs pact idea, the a French diplomat said to a German banker it would be a disaster for France, because it would mean 40 more German divisions; the German bank replied: and better yet, 1 general staff! Apparently the Frenchman was not amused. Probably in the end it would not be a bad thing to have Anschluss, but the problem is there would be no guarantee that all successor states would be pro-German, able to be controlled, or that the economic zone that was A-H would have any successor in the patchwork of successor states. Plus even a controlled demolition would require major commitments of German troops. The Czechs would be a handful to deal with on their own and the Catholics and Socialists in Austria would not be warmly welcomed by Berlin, nor vice versa.
Question--couldn't Germany simply block an Austrian request for Anchluss? After all, it's not like rump Austria can't survive as an independent state (as events after 1945 in our TL have indeed shown)!
 
Top