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

How and why the British can't turn to internal financing like the Germans is always glossed over.
1 too late
2 the French are done for once this happens either way, the British would have to be stupid to think they could win without that continental foothold.
 
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!).

Are we really claiming now that Russia's best outcome was OTL under Stalin, and that no other regime could surpass that development?


Also, honestly, in regards to Ukraine, giving Ukraine genuine (as opposed to nominal) independence might very well be a massively smart move on Germany's part; after all, it would:

But aren't we now getting into the realm of wish fulfillment, and not the more probable outcome (a series of unstable German puppet states)?


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.

But this is a Germany that controls Europe France to the Vistula. What Great Power would ally with Russia against that sort of Germany?


1 too late
2 the French are done for once this happens either way, the British would have to be stupid to think they could win without that continental foothold.

Why are the French done for?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
How and why the British can't turn to internal financing like the Germans is always glossed over.
Let's see what Wiking has to say about this, shall we? After all, I am merely using the information which he provided in regards to this.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
But aren't we now getting into the realm of wish fulfillment, and not the more probable outcome (a series of unstable German puppet states)?

Perhaps; however, realism can result in undesirable policy moves.

But this is a Germany that controls Europe France to the Vistula. What Great Power would ally with Russia against that sort of Germany?

Well, you can take a look at our TL's WWII for some answers. ;)
 
Why are the French done for?
Shaky morale (not as bad as many claim but still)
Broke and indebt
Decimated domestic industry
Empty farms (need men for the front line)
Basically no hope of pushing into Germany even if they manage kick the Germans out.
How are they not done for?
 
Let's see what Wiking has to say about this, shall we? After all, I am merely using the information which he provided in regards to this.

I've read a ton of his posts, so I can attempt to summarize. It's not money in general that was running out in 1917, it was the ability to pay for American goods, oil and steel especially, though I imagine food and other odds and ends as well. To pay for those, you'd need either gold or dollars. The latter could be acquired through loans, but lenders usually want to be secured by collateral. Before entering the war, the Wilson Administration advised against banks giving unsecured loans to the Entente, so by early 1917 they were running out of gold, dollars, and American assets to use as collateral for loans. Should America have sat out, you'd see a drop off in American exports for lack of ability to pay, and without those raw materials, the war effort suffers badly, to the point where the Spring Offensive of 1918 probably can't be stopped-if they last that long.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I've read a ton of his posts, so I can attempt to summarize. It's not money in general that was running out in 1917, it was the ability to pay for American goods, oil and steel especially, though I imagine food and other odds and ends as well. To pay for those, you'd need either gold or dollars. The latter could be acquired through loans, but lenders usually want to be secured by collateral. Before entering the war, the Wilson Administration advised against banks giving unsecured loans to the Entente, so by early 1917 they were running out of gold, dollars, and American assets to use as collateral for loans. Should America have sat out, you'd see a drop off in American exports for lack of ability to pay, and without those raw materials, the war effort suffers badly, to the point where the Spring Offensive of 1918 probably can't be stopped-if they last that long.
Great explanation! :D
 
I've read a ton of his posts, so I can attempt to summarize. It's not money in general that was running out in 1917, it was the ability to pay for American goods, oil and steel especially, though I imagine food and other odds and ends as well. To pay for those, you'd need either gold or dollars. The latter could be acquired through loans, but lenders usually want to be secured by collateral. Before entering the war, the Wilson Administration advised against banks giving unsecured loans to the Entente, so by early 1917 they were running out of gold, dollars, and American assets to use as collateral for loans. Should America have sat out, you'd see a drop off in American exports for lack of ability to pay, and without those raw materials, the war effort suffers badly, to the point where the Spring Offensive of 1918 probably can't be stopped-if they last that long.

I have the book. What it glosses over is that Britain wasn't out of gold or other assets to sell.

So Britain goes hungry, and mortgages the empire in ww2 instead of ww1.

This gets you an angry Britain that wants to squeeze Germany til the pips squeak, so it doesn't get discussed.

I mean, think about it. Germany: a hunger winter. Britain: has to provide more collateral!

Other options include providing capital in other parts of the empire, st higher rates.
 
I have the book. What it glosses over is that Britain wasn't out of gold or other assets to sell.

So Britain goes hungry, and mortgages the empire in ww2 instead of ww1.

This gets you an angry Britain that wants to squeeze Germany til the pips squeak, so it doesn't get discussed.

I mean, think about it. Germany: a hunger winter. Britain: has to provide more collateral!

Other options include providing capital in other parts of the empire, st higher rates.
This isn't ww2 and this isn't the third reich, imperial Germany is a much more fearsome and logical (admittedly not saying much) beast than its successor.
Without the Americans the wallies lack the manpower and resources to force any kind of harsh peace on Germany, even if Germany loses it still wins, Russia is Broken and France is a smoldering ruin that simply isn't going to be able to extract what it needs to rebuild from Germany. Even if the west wins it will be one of the most pyrrhic victories in history.
 
I have the book. What it glosses over is that Britain wasn't out of gold or other assets to sell.

Source? Can't be that book, of course, if it's negligent.

So Britain goes hungry, and mortgages the empire in ww2 instead of ww1.

I assume you mean the other way around with that, but regardless, rationing only solves potential food shortages. And I'm not sure "mortgaging" solves the rest, when Wilson, for all his naivete, was still far less compliant than FDR.

This gets you an angry Britain that wants to squeeze Germany til the pips squeak, so it doesn't get discussed.

Because they were holding back out of chivalry before, or what?

I mean, think about it. Germany: a hunger winter. Britain: has to provide more collateral!

The one's in Winter 1917-18. The other's in Spring 1917 and has direct implications on the major offensives every Entente member conducted in 1917, given that they all relied on British loans themselves. Worse must be weighed against most immediate. And none of this solves the morale problems in the French army and their willingness to go back onto the offensive.
 
But this is a Germany that controls Europe France to the Vistula. What Great Power would ally with Russia against that sort of Germany?

Of any single great power only Britain, standing head and shoulders above the rest although with hideous vulnerability to Uboats, would be a worthwhile ally to a recovered Russia against German mitteleuropa. The US would be better, but its not a great power, its one of the 3 superpowers.

How and why the British can't turn to internal financing like the Germans is always glossed over.

The German economy shrank by 27% during WW1, the French by 24% but the British economy grew by 7%. I think that if the British were prepared to consume themselves like the other Europeans they might have been able to continue the war after the foreign loans ran out.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Sure. What is likely to happen is they try to hold it, things go bad in the area and they have to pull out and have worsened relations with the Ottomans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baku
They wanted it to due to the Turkoman population in the area. Plus there is the Bolshies to deal with too all over the former parts of Russia; if it goes into 1918 and the October Revolution happens (OTL minus the US due to H-L not willing to accept what the negotiations are turning out in 1917), then the entire area will be a mess. Ukraine too. If Ukraine goes tits up then the Germans cannot supply the Caucasus. Likely they will have to cede the area at some point and will be pissy about it because it makes them look weak. Plus the Ottomans will still have to deal with the Bolsheviks and realities of trying to hold their rotting empire together while conquering new lands, all while the Brits are sitting on the Muslim Holy Land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrai...nce#German_intervention_and_Hetmanate.2C_1918
Question about Ukraine--even if Germany has to withdraw from Ukraine in 1918-1919 due to the deteriorating situation in Austria-Hungary, couldn't Germany simply reoccupy Ukraine a couple of years later while the Russian Civil War is still ongoing?
 

Deleted member 1487

Question about Ukraine--even if Germany has to withdraw from Ukraine in 1918-1919 due to the deteriorating situation in Austria-Hungary, couldn't Germany simply reoccupy Ukraine a couple of years later while the Russian Civil War is still ongoing?
Depends on how much resistance there was and how much will the German public has for getting involved in a war they had just abandoned; they'd have lost any allies there due to abandoning them once already.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Depends on how much resistance there was and how much will the German public has for getting involved in a war they had just abandoned; they'd have lost any allies there due to abandoning them once already.
Would they have completely abandoned their allies, though? Indeed, can't they hold Galicia and some other parts of western Ukraine and to prop up their Ukrainian allies there for a couple of years until they finish dealing with the mess in Austria-Hungary?

Also, as for the German people, who exactly other than the Communists/Spartacists is going to oppose a military intervention in Ukraine--especially as a part of a German effort to overthrow the Bolsheviks--so soon after a Central Powers World War I victory?
 
Germany won't let France rearm; indeed, Russia is probably a different matter due to its massive size.
The Germans will be distracted with some upset Poles and Ukrainians in the east and the total mess that is the Balkans. France could take advantage of that and rearm.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The Germans will be distracted with some upset Poles and Ukrainians in the east and the total mess that is the Balkans. France could take advantage of that and rearm.
France is probably too small (both in terms of its size and in terms of its population) to take advantage of this, though.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Unless they received some outside help.The United States and France do a lot of trade,arms smuggling is easly possible.
If Germany tries to mess with the U.S. by trying to violate the Monroe Doctrine, then I actually don't consider this to be implausible. :)
 
Top