My theory of Central Powers victory in WWI

[Ellie]

Would a Central Powers (as in OTL; Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Ottoman Empire) victory be for the better of history?

Many scenarios of a CP victory in WWI have a neutral US with an eventual CP victory. In all seriousness, what would happen? From what I've read I've come to a few conclusions. Feedback would be great

As for France, the most humiliated of the Allies, there would be large indemnities and a large occupation zone. From what I've read, France has neither the capacity nor the conditions necessary for a far-left "Communist France" nor a far-right "Fascist France". Even if a revanchist regime was established, I doubt the Germans would tolerate it even for a minute and would take necessary actions unlike oftentimes OTL allies against Germany. France would lose many overseas territories, though the remaining strongholds, such as Indochina, could erupt in full-scale revolt against a weaker France.

As for Russia, there are many German puppet states that were established from the Eastern Front. With a buffer of CP-friendly states separating Russia from Germany and Austria-Hungary (the latter would ruin hopes of a last-chance Pan-Slavist movement), an extremist Russia could be choked off.

As for Britain, the least humiliated of the Allies, there is not much territory lost. Troubled with defeat on the continent, the British instead focus on maintaining their empire (still probably the largest overseas empire in the world), namely India, and shy away from the continent, much like pre-war. Due to the possibility of not having to cede territory, an Anglo-German rapprochement is likely by 1940.

As for Austria-Hungary, despite their occupation of Serbia, they are forced to withdraw due to impending internal struggles. However, the nation is free to establish liberal reforms, which are encouraged by the creation of nearby nation-states such as Ukraine. Internal struggles in A-H are probably the greatest struggle for the Central Powers during the late 1910's to the early 1930's, thus beginning a new age of warfare, much like OTL "fourth-generation warfare". Many regions would wish to secede from A-H (namely Galician Ukranians who would like to join Ukraine), and this goal's possibility depends on the CP's treatment of internal struggles. More leaders like Franz Josef would probably leave A-H in ruins, though.

As for the Ottoman Empire, the nation begins a slow decline despite victory. I could see the empire collapsing just to the approximate area of OTL Turkey by 1935, and the Germans may encourage the decline as they want to gobble up territory for their own economic use (even Britain may as well).

As for the United States, the nation continues its internal buildup but does not have as strong Pacific ambitions due to its not gaining territory after OTL WWI. The nation instead claims Latin America as its own sphere of influence against its rival Germany.

As for Japan, the nation may be even more aggressive than OTL due to a humiliating defeat. The result? A strike against German bases in the pacific, thus making a disjoint "Pacific War" with a coalition of Germany, Britain, the United States who is threatened because of Hawaii, and the Netherlands who is threatened because of Indonesia. The result is a fast defeat for Japan, and no massive war in the Pacific.

Last but not least, as for Germany, the nation goes on a massive reconstruction program. Germany most likely becomes more liberal over time (especially with the passing of Wilhelm II), and with the stabilization of France, Russia, and Austria-Hungary, the Germans withdraw from the former Eastern Front to allow independent development of the countries, though they remain in a sort of "economic zone" with Germany and Austria-Hungary. With a German victory, there is no Nazism as we know it, and an equivalent isn't established in France or Russia. Perhaps Italy remains a threat, especially to Austria-Hungary, but all movements for war are unpopular.

What does anyone else think about this theory? Would a CP victory be for the better or the worse of history? If you guys would like, I could explain the result for other nations as well

 

[Perfidious Albion]

I'm afraid I disagree quite profoundly.

1. If the Central Powers win, Germany is the undisputed hegemon of continental Europe up to the Russian/Soviet border. There are not realistically going to be any wars in Western Europe to offset the status quo.
2. The WW1-era Kaiserreich is a massive military dictatorship that has just been vindicated by victory. It isn't realistically going to reform very much, or if it does, very slowly. All the other powers in Europe will be inspired by the example of this victorious semi-superpower.
3. France will probably go revanchist of some sort; you're right that this scenario's Germans will never permit the French to get far, but nor would OTL's Soviet Union permit OTL's Germans to get far and that didn't stop the Germans IOTL. The Germans will occupy it, but Germany hardly has the moral position to shock France out of extremism as the Allies did to post-WW2 Germany IOTL. France will continue to be occupied, then, as soon as the occupation is lifted, there will either be a German puppet government (in which case France will become a place of constant guerrilla warfare reminiscent of OTL's Afghanistan) or a genuinely French government which will just start the next round of bloodshed.
4. The Balkans will remain under the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which will eventually collapse under the weight of unsatisfied nationalist aspirations, thus leaving a gigantic mess with no-one very interested in sorting it out.
5. There will be no Second World War to break the power of the European colonial empires and put them in thrall to the superpowers; they will remain intact and policy-independent. Great for Britain (which will be the only major colonial power left, since France is crippled and Germany can't maintain any colonial possessions in the face of British naval superiority) and the minor colonial powers, like Portugal and the Netherlands; awful for pretty much everyone in Asia and Africa.
6. The Germans can't realistically end communist power in the former Russian EMpire but that won't stop them from trying. Lots and lots of blood there.
7. An Americo-Japanese war will happen as IOTL. It will draw the USA out of its isolationist shell and cause it to act as a superpower.
8. You're right that there probably will be Anglo-German rapprochement. But that leaves the Soviet Union, the United States and the imperialist European powers in a Cold War-esque conflict of interests across the globe. And in this conflict, only the USSR is economically inefficient enough to collapse. So a *Cold War will continue between the European powers, trying to hold on to their colonies by ever crueller methods, and the United States.

So yes, not a very nice world.

 

[Yossarian]

I'm afraid I disagree quite profoundly.

1. If the Central Powers win, Germany is the undisputed hegemon of continental Europe up to the Russian/Soviet border. There are not realistically going to be any wars in Western Europe to offset the status quo.
2. The WW1-era Kaiserreich is a massive military dictatorship that has just been vindicated by victory. It isn't realistically going to reform very much, or if it does, very slowly. All the other powers in Europe will be inspired by the example of this victorious semi-superpower.
3. France will probably go revanchist of some sort; you're right that this scenario's Germans will never permit the French to get far, but nor would OTL's Soviet Union permit OTL's Germans to get far and that didn't stop the Germans IOTL. The Germans will occupy it, but Germany hardly has the moral position to shock France out of extremism as the Allies did to post-WW2 Germany IOTL. France will continue to be occupied, then, as soon as the occupation is lifted, there will either be a German puppet government (in which case France will become a place of constant guerrilla warfare reminiscent of OTL's Afghanistan) or a genuinely French government which will just start the next round of bloodshed.
4. The Balkans will remain under the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which will eventually collapse under the weight of unsatisfied nationalist aspirations, thus leaving a gigantic mess with no-one very interested in sorting it out.
5. There will be no Second World War to break the power of the European colonial empires and put them in thrall to the superpowers; they will remain intact and policy-independent. Great for Britain (which will be the only major colonial power left, since France is crippled and Germany can't maintain any colonial possessions in the face of British naval superiority) and the minor colonial powers, like Portugal and the Netherlands; awful for pretty much everyone in Asia and Africa.
6. The Germans can't realistically end communist power in the former Russian EMpire but that won't stop them from trying. Lots and lots of blood there.
7. An Americo-Japanese war will happen as IOTL. It will draw the USA out of its isolationist shell and cause it to act as a superpower.
8. You're right that there probably will be Anglo-German rapprochement. But that leaves the Soviet Union, the United States and the imperialist European powers in a Cold War-esque conflict of interests across the globe. And in this conflict, only the USSR is economically inefficient enough to collapse. So a *Cold War will continue between the European powers, trying to hold on to their colonies by ever crueller methods, and the United States.

So yes, not a very nice world.

1. No wars in Western Europe is definitely a positive

2. Germany was on a path towards liberalization before WWI, and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't continue in that direction. Even victorious I don't think there would be much joy or triumphalism about the result of the Great War, any more than there was among the Allies IOTL. No conceivable gains from the war would be worth the cost in lives and treasure

3. The French government will surely be anti-German, but even IOTL Germany was stronger than France, and ITTL the gap would be even wider. A revanchist France wouldn't want to start anything unless they had powerful allies, which I doubt they'd get.

4. Austria-Hungary could go many different ways, but it's tough to imagine the Balkans being that much worse off than IOTL.

5. I think with the rise of nationalism colonialism was bound to collapse eventually. A slower transition away from imperial rule could well be better for the former colonies.

6. I doubt Germany would intervene in Russia. After all, they just made peace with the new post-revolutionary government, why start up again? The Russian Civil War could actually be less bloody than IOTL, since the Allies would have less ability or inclination to intervene on the side of the Whites. I think the most likely policy for the Germans would be containment - maintaining most of Eastern Europe as allies / puppets in exchange for defending them against any Soviet expansion.

7. The OP seems to think that Japan was part of the Central Powers. I doubt the Japanese would be willing to attack the US and other Western powers without WWII already being in progress, the balance of forces would be even more ridiculously against them than IOTL.

8. Not sure why we'd end up with a Cold War ITTL. Sure there would be competition, but nothing like the clash of civilizations in the OTL Cold War.

So it could go well! On the other hand it could also be a disaster. Both OTL and TTL could go a million different ways, some awful, some pleasant.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

1. No wars in Western Europe is definitely a positive

Wars are horrible things, but they do have the potential to upset the status quo. The status quo described here is not a pleasant one.

2. Germany was on a path towards liberalization before WWI, and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't continue in that direction.

I do. A military dictatorship had taken over the country, rendering the Reichstag irrelevant and the Kaiser very nearly so. If Germany wins the war, the German government will be convinced that this model of governance works.

Even victorious I don't think there would be much joy or triumphalism about the result of the Great War, any more than there was among the Allies IOTL. No conceivable gains from the war would be worth the cost in lives and treasure

You miss the crucial difference between the OTL Entente powers' situation and TTL Germany's situation. Britain and the United States had preserved what they had and made no significant gains, while France had gained Alsace-Lorraine but had their country wrecked as most of the fighting was on their soil; these are not conducive to triumphalism. TTL's Germany, on the other hand, would have made enormous gains (in the east), won so many reparations from France as to make the Treaty of Versailles look like a light slap on the wrist (look at German plans for what they would have done if they had won) to help their economy, and not had much fighting occur on their soil. Especially with an authoritarian regime loudly praising every victory with lots of internal propaganda and suppressing anti-war sentiment and discontent, this would be highly conducive to triumphalism.

3. The French government will surely be anti-German, but even IOTL Germany was stronger than France, and ITTL the gap would be even wider. A revanchist France wouldn't want to start anything unless they had powerful allies, which I doubt they'd get.

I think you highly overestimate the intelligence and sanity of revanchist far-right regimes in major European countries in this time-period. Look at the Nazis. It would have been sensible for them not to take on the British Empire and the Soviet Union, financially backed by the coffers of the United States, at the same time without powerful allies; even without American entry into the war German defeat was virtually certain. They did it anyway. Post-war France would be so oppressed as to make Weimar Germany look like an oasis of calm and stability; this would not be conducive to the creation of a sensible regime.

4. Austria-Hungary could go many different ways, but it's tough to imagine the Balkans being that much worse off than IOTL.

It is, at first, but the Soviet Union essentially enforced mostly-peace in the Balkans until it collapsed, at which point everything was screwed up again. Imperial Germany is unlikely to do the same.

5. I think with the rise of nationalism colonialism was bound to collapse eventually. A slower transition away from imperial rule could well be better for the former colonies.

Agreed. That doesn't mean the imperial powers will give them any kind of transition away from imperial rule. IOTL the European imperial powers gave up their colonies for two reasons: a war that made them economically unable to continue with imperialism (not going to happen if the Central Powers win WW1) and the choice between obeying the USA's orders to give up their colonies and communist domination (not going to happen if the Central Powers win WW1).

6. I doubt Germany would intervene in Russia. After all, they just made peace with the new post-revolutionary government, why start up again?

As an alliance of convenience. But yes, I admit that this point of mine (though not the others) was weak and probably wrong.

The Russian Civil War could actually be less bloody than IOTL, since the Allies would have less ability or inclination to intervene on the side of the Whites. I think the most likely policy for the Germans would be containment - maintaining most of Eastern Europe as allies / puppets in exchange for defending them against any Soviet expansion.

Thoroughly reasonable points.

7. The OP seems to think that Japan was part of the Central Powers.

Maybe. There wouldn't be a Japanese defeat in the First World War, because German defeat in every theatre outside Europe was guaranteed, thanks to the massive naval superiority of the Entente. Even in the event of a German victory, Germany maintaining any colonies outside North Africa is, if not ASB, incredibly incredibly unlikely. So Japan wouldn't suffer a humiliating defeat, it can just grab its colonies and Germany can do nothing about it, because the moment any significant German naval force leaves German ports it will be pounced upon and eaten for breakfast by the British Grand Fleet.

I doubt the Japanese would be willing to attack the US and other Western powers without WWII already being in progress, the balance of forces would be even more ridiculously against them than IOTL.

The USA was funding resistance movements against Japanese rule in Japan's colonies, and Japan believed (wrongly) that the UK and the USA were so closely allied that an attack on one would inevitably result in a declaration of war from them both, so they decided that it was best to try to cripple both at the same time.

It was horrendously stupid, but it's not going to change ITTL. Imperial Japan was the sort of regime that could make such horrendously stupid decisions, as OTL proves to us.

8. Not sure why we'd end up with a Cold War ITTL. Sure there would be competition, but nothing like the clash of civilizations in the OTL Cold War.

The USA had a tendency to fund rebels against colonial rule. The colonial empires had a tendency to react poorly to anyone trying to take away their colonies. I contend that only the unifying presence of the greater threat of communism and the Second World War's destruction of the European empires' ability to resist US power prevented a US-imperialist *Cold War IOTL.

So it could go well! On the other hand it could also be a disaster. Both OTL and TTL could go a million different ways, some awful, some pleasant.

Agreed. But TTL is likelier to go awfully, mainly because Europe is united under the control (direct or otherwise) of a vicious authoritarian regime that is sufficiently stable to prevent any *WW2 from getting rid of the whole malevolent structure.

 

[Sabot Cat]

As for Russia, there are many German puppet states that were established from the Eastern Front. With a buffer of CP-friendly states separating Russia from Germany and Austria-Hungary (the latter would ruin hopes of a last-chance Pan-Slavist movement), an extremist Russia could be choked off.

Perhaps temporarily, but the buffer state plan didn't really work in our timeline so I'm not sure why it would in this one if the Soviet Union arises and is run by someone with expansionist interests.

As for Britain, the least humiliated of the Allies, there is not much territory lost. Troubled with defeat on the continent, the British instead focus on maintaining their empire (still probably the largest overseas empire in the world), namely India, and shy away from the continent, much like pre-war. Due to the possibility of not having to cede territory, an Anglo-German rapprochement is likely by 1940.

Why wouldn't the United Kingdom ally with France, and France with Russia, encircling the Central Powers? I could easily see "World War II: Let's All Gang Up on Germany".

As for Austria-Hungary, despite their occupation of Serbia, they are forced to withdraw due to impending internal struggles. However, the nation is free to establish liberal reforms, which are encouraged by the creation of nearby nation-states such as Ukraine. Internal struggles in A-H are probably the greatest struggle for the Central Powers during the late 1910's to the early 1930's, thus beginning a new age of warfare, much like OTL "fourth-generation warfare". Many regions would wish to secede from A-H (namely Galician Ukranians who would like to join Ukraine), and this goal's possibility depends on the CP's treatment of internal struggles. More leaders like Franz Josef would probably leave A-H in ruins, though.

As for the Ottoman Empire, the nation begins a slow decline despite victory. I could see the empire collapsing just to the approximate area of OTL Turkey by 1935, and the Germans may encourage the decline as they want to gobble up territory for their own economic use (even Britain may as well).

The Allied Powers, especially the United Kingdom, would be likely and willing to contribute to these internal struggles.

As for the United States, the nation continues its internal buildup but does not have as strong Pacific ambitions due to its not gaining territory after OTL WWI. The nation instead claims Latin America as its own sphere of influence against its rival Germany.

The U.S. still has the Philippines, Guam and Hawaii, so I'm not sure why they wouldn't have Pacific interests despite neutrality in the Great War.

As for Japan, the nation may be even more aggressive than OTL due to a humiliating defeat. The result? A strike against German bases in the pacific, thus making a disjoint "Pacific War" with a coalition of Germany, Britain, the United States who is threatened because of Hawaii, and the Netherlands who is threatened because of Indonesia. The result is a fast defeat for Japan, and no massive war in the Pacific.

I don't think there would be much of any changes here because the Royal Navy, the U.S. Navy and Japan would be able to smash any of the Central Powers' maritime opposition to them even if the Allies are forced to agree to a more equitable peace in Europe.

What does anyone else think about this theory? Would a CP victory be for the better or the worse of history? If you guys would like, I could explain the result for other nations as well

Probably for the better if there's no Holocaust and nothing equivalent to it.

 

[Ellie]

I feel like I didn't address the situation in Russia well enough.

In a CP victory, Russia still goes communist as OTL. Who leads the country, however, is subject to the enormous butterflies of a victorious Germany. Stalin may not even come to power. Russia/Soviet Union's success is largely dependent on leadership. Also, Russia is too large even for the newly dominant German Empire to fully take down.

Some revanchist feelings will most likely remain, and if the Germans ever do retreat from Ukraine (probably in the 1940s, after the passing of Wilhelm II and other military commanders), I could see Russia waging a war of aggression on the nation in an attempt to win back national prestige. In short, this leads to "Russia vs. Germany v2" and results in a stalemate, though the German recapture of Ukraine is not realized. Depending on who is the bigger threat, Germany or Communism, I could see Britain swinging either way. Austria-Hungary at this point is trying to keep itself together so probably no involvement there besides a division deployed to Ukraine. France may have anti-German feelings, but depending on the position of Britain, France may or may not attack Germany (France does not want to face a defeat against Britain AND Germany if communism is the bigger enemy). At the end of this "Europe War", Russia most likely captures Ukraine and the Baltic Coast, though Poland remains in Germany's hands. Austria-Hungary faces dissolution and an overthrow of the monarchy. Germany does not fall. In short, the war is a mixed bag.

 

[Ellie]

Also, if the above doesn't happen, I could see a four-way Cold War between the British Empire and allies, the German Empire and allies, Soviet Russia and the United States. Just before the Cold War Japan is destroyed by a war with each four Cold War blocs fighting as an anti-Japanese coalition. Each respective nation, Britain, Germany, Russia, and the United States all get an occupation zone in Japan. As to the relations of each bloc with one another, I'm quite unsure at this point, though the Soviet bloc would likely be the most isolated.

 

[Ellie]

I don't think there would be much of any changes here because the Royal Navy, the U.S. Navy and Japan would be able to smash any of the Central Powers' maritime opposition to them even if the Allies are forced to agree to a more equitable peace in Europe.

Oops, my wording is strange there.
The war in this scenario would be Japan vs Germany/Britain/USA/Netherlands.

 

[Sabot Cat]

Oops, my wording is strange there.
The war in this scenario would be Japan vs Germany/Britain/USA/Netherlands.

Why would Japan abrogate their alliance with the United Kingdom if the CP win though?

 

[RCAF Brat]

Why would Japan abrogate their alliance with the United Kingdom if the CP win though?

This.

And @ the OP: What German bases in the Pacific? The Japanese took everything the Germans had in both China and the Pacific in 1914. No matter who wins in Europe, Germany isn't getting that back. Trying will just activate the Anglo-Japanese Alliance again and thus lead to Germany losing whatever overseas possessions that the British haven't taken yet along with whatever remains of the High Seas Fleet. The Royal Navy will like the outcome a lot more than the Germans will. One rival fewer for them to guard against...

 

[MarshalBraginsky]

If the US joins the war on the Entente side and still loses, what kind of territorial losses would they suffer from? I can guess that the Philippines would either still be kept, or Germany gets it.

 

[MrHaakwood]

If the US joins the war on the Entente side and still loses, what kind of territorial losses would they suffer from? I can guess that the Philippines would either still be kept, or Germany gets it.

Germany can not force the USA to give something up, or the UK, so this wont happen.
You can only get what you got, France is another case, because its Motherland is occupied in a Central Powers victory.

 

[Ellie]

This.

And @ the OP: What German bases in the Pacific?

After WWI Germany establishes bases in such islands as Nauru and Palau as a means of establishing a firm presence in the Pacific.

 

[Ellie]

Why would Japan abrogate their alliance with the United Kingdom if the CP win though?

Oh and of all nations Japan is the most likely to go revanchist after a defeat, I would think.
They feel betrayed by the British after defeat.

 

[TRH]

After WWI Germany establishes bases in such islands as Nauru and Palau as a means of establishing a firm presence in the Pacific.

Why? /filler

 

[Ellie]

Why? /filler

Why would they not? I think they would take full advantage of any possession that they have. But I will admit there would not be a large military presence in the Pacific anyways, they still would rank 4th after Britain, US, and Japan (not in order).

 

[TRH]

Why would they not? I think they would take full advantage of any possession that they have. But I will admit there would not be a large military presence in the Pacific War anyways, they still would rank 4th after Britain, US, and Japan (not in order).

Well, I guess my real question was "why would they expend political/financial capital to support/defend Pacific colonies that have just proven indefensible anyways?" The question becomes doubly pressing if they have shiny new French/Belgian colonies in Africa to use as a playground instead.

 

[Ellie]

Oh and if Japan were supporting a revolution in still-French-held Indochina, I think the French would reluctantly side with Britain and Germany in the war against Japan though military action would be limited. The war against Japan could be an early attempt at European unity but harsh feelings come back after Japan's defeat.

That all is, provided the Japanese support the Indochinese revolution.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

Let me try to explain what German victory would entail. It would entail the defeat of France and the United Kingdom on land in Europe (or a French surrender). This does not entail victory anywhere else, which is virtually impossible.

Simply put, the German High Seas Fleet is too greatly inferior in numbers to the British Grand Fleet to survive a major engagement (Jutland counting more as a skirmish where the opposing dreadnoughts didn't get really close and the Germans successfully fled to avoid a clash with the main force of the Grand Fleet), and also had a noteworthy disadvantage in armament. As a result, the High Seas Fleet can do little but sit in port and occasionally sortie out daringly while trying to avoid the Grand Fleet; the moment the Grand Fleet comes near, the High Seas Fleet has to either retreat or be annihilated. Consequently, British naval superiority is guaranteed; the Germans can't meaningfully oppose the British blockade or project power anywhere that requires maritime routes, because they can't supply there.

As a result, even German colonies in North Africa would be a stretch and hideously expensive to maintain (though possible if the Ottoman Empire survives and Germany thus manages to control the overland routes). Germany is utterly incapable of projecting any considerable amount of power whatsoever in Asia, the Americas or southern Africa, even in the best possible scenario for Germany. Germany's colonies were taken fairly easily and Germany can do absolutely nothing about it, nor can it do anything to regain them.

Now, onto other matters:

I disagree with Lammergeiers's assertions of "massive butterflies" that will change Soviet Russia so dramatically. Lenin and the Bolshevik Party will still take power and they will still probably win the Russian Civil War. Therefore, we will see an OTL-esque Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. Even if the former Russian Empire's possessions in Eastern Europe (e.g. Ukraine and Belarus) are not retained, the RSFSR will still rule Central Asia (areas that are noticeably non-Russian), so the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will probably be established anyway; even if it isn't, the USSR was just the RSFSR and its puppets anyway, so it won't make too much of a difference.

As for France, it might try to give Germany its colonies in name. In practice, of course, Britain will take them in the name of the 'legitimate French government' (which might be anything from a full government-in-exile, if France fought Germany to the last acre of French soil in the First World War, to a motley group of diehards, if France surrendered). Germany can do absolutely nothing about this. In fact, Germany's position here is much weaker than it was before the war; while Britain is undamaged, albeit bruised in morale and in significant amounts of debt, Germany has lost far, far more men and has to constantly maintain an enormous standing army for its own security and also to maintain its various puppet states and client states in both Western and Eastern Europe.

In summary: In the form of the First World War, Germany entered a fight such that even in its best-case scenario it would suffer much and gain little. Winning a war doesn't mean you just get everything you want.

 

[Ellie]

Let me try to explain what German victory would entail. It would entail the defeat of France and the United Kingdom on land in Europe (or a French surrender). This does not entail victory anywhere else, which is virtually impossible.

Simply put, the German High Seas Fleet is too greatly inferior in numbers to the British Grand Fleet to survive a major engagement (Jutland counting more as a skirmish where the opposing dreadnoughts didn't get really close and the Germans successfully fled to avoid a clash with the main force of the Grand Fleet), and also had a noteworthy disadvantage in armament. As a result, the High Seas Fleet can do little but sit in port and occasionally sortie out daringly while trying to avoid the Grand Fleet; the moment the Grand Fleet comes near, the High Seas Fleet has to either retreat or be annihilated. Consequently, British naval superiority is guaranteed; the Germans can't meaningfully oppose the British blockade or project power anywhere that requires maritime routes, because they can't supply there.

As a result, even German colonies in North Africa would be a stretch and hideously expensive to maintain (though possible if the Ottoman Empire survives and Germany thus manages to control the overland routes). Germany is utterly incapable of projecting any considerable amount of power whatsoever in Asia, the Americas or southern Africa, even in the best possible scenario for Germany. Germany's colonies were taken fairly easily and Germany can do absolutely nothing about it, nor can it do anything to regain them.

Now, onto other matters:

I disagree with Lammergeiers's assertions of "massive butterflies" that will change Soviet Russia so dramatically. Lenin and the Bolshevik Party will still take power and they will still probably win the Russian Civil War. Therefore, we will see an OTL-esque Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. Even if the former Russian Empire's possessions in Eastern Europe (e.g. Ukraine and Belarus) are not retained, the RSFSR will still rule Central Asia (areas that are noticeably non-Russian), so the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will probably be established anyway; even if it isn't, the USSR was just the RSFSR and its puppets anyway, so it won't make too much of a difference.

As for France, it might try to give Germany its colonies in name. In practice, of course, Britain will take them in the name of the 'legitimate French government' (which might be anything from a full government-in-exile, if France fought Germany to the last acre of French soil in the First World War, to a motley group of diehards, if France surrendered). Germany can do absolutely nothing about this. In fact, Germany's position here is much weaker than it was before the war; while Britain is undamaged, albeit bruised in morale and in significant amounts of debt, Germany has lost far, far more men and has to constantly maintain an enormous standing army for its own security and also to maintain its various puppet states and client states in both Western and Eastern Europe.

In summary: In the form of the First World War, Germany entered a fight such that even in its best-case scenario it would suffer much and gain little. Winning a war doesn't mean you just get everything you want.

And thus there is retreat from the East by Germany? I guess my stress on retreat from the East wasn't stressed too much.