My theory of Central Powers victory in WWI

BlondieBC

Banned
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 :D

CP win is better than OTL because we got the near worst case scenario IOTL. If taking the multiverse of possible Entente wins versus CP wins, it is a lot more complicated. I strongly lean towards the CP wins generally being better than Entente wins, but it is a lot harder when we have to look at some many possible ATL on both sides.

To your points.

1) France will be a mess. In most TL, Germany will be strong enough to keep France from rising again. The main risk is a stronger Russia returns in a generation or so to fix the problems with WW2, and Germany has followed an unwise policy in this time frame.


2) Russian can be contained in most TL if you have a German/A-H/Ottoman alliance. Go to the other extreme and have A-H and Ottomans fall apart in a CP win, and the odds get a lot better for a Russia revenge war that works for Russia.

3) UK could easily gain land. They will have a mess in India. I lean towards the rise of Germany leading to a more unified white Dominions where the Dominions help a lot more with the defense budget. We see larger, not smaller UK army.

4) A-H will tend to hold together except in late win for CP scenarios. Serbia will be kept down as long as A-H survives. Complicated topic, that can go many ways.

5) Ottomans situation is highly vulnerable to butterflies. All depends on why, how and when CP win.

6) Japan will not be defeat. Japan won its battles in 1914 and early 1915. They keep OTL gains in most wins. We then get into how UK/Japanese relations go, after the war. Highly variable.

7) Germany will get more liberal over time, but they will keep their sphere of influence. Too much was lost to allow Russia to easily regain its status, unless we get low quality German leaders.
 
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).

What possessions in the Pacific? Between them the Japanese and the British took everything that Germany had in region (the British grabbed the German chunk of New Guinea and the Japanese snaffled everything else) before 1914 was over. If the Central Powers were to win the war in Europe, Japan and Britain would simply keep what they took. And then probably divide the French colonies there between them if the French prove to be unable or unwilling to retain them.

Germany cannot do anything about that, well apart from getting the High Seas Fleet sunk. One, the Pacific is on the far side of the world, and two the Royal Navy would just love it if the HSF were to sail out where they could get at it. The High Seas Fleet would never make it out of the North Sea.
 

BlondieBC

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

While the alliance was not abrogated formally in WW1 IOTL, the Japanese took actions which laid the seeds for the breakup well before the war ended. The Japanese demands on China which the UK did not like. Going to a near status of peace with the Germans for a while. In a CP win under almost all POD's, this still happens. And the UK often ends up weaker in 1919 than OTL, so the Japanese likely continue to press for concessions/gains in East Asia.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
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.

Basically agreed. The only exception is the Germans trade something they have for something they want more. The classic one here is Belgium neutrality or not militarizing the Channel coast for the return of colonies or some loss of Belgium colonies. The Germans simply lack anything the US wants, so there will be no loss of US lands.
 

BlondieBC

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


If the UK agrees or the Germans sink the RN. The later is very unlikely to happen. I wrote a TL where the Germans did great against the Royal Navy, and the Royal Navy did not run out of ships.
 
If the UK agrees or the Germans sink the RN. The later is very unlikely to happen. I wrote a TL where the Germans did great against the Royal Navy, and the Royal Navy did not run out of ships.

But Germany already owned those islands. I guess you'd need a PoD with a stronger Pacific fleet.

Anyhow, with the former given true ITTL, German presence in the pacific is the compensation for Britain not losing territory.
 
Here is another thought. Since Britain and Japan occupied German colonies in the Pacific the Germans could offer money in return for repossession of the islands. Germany could also offer Britain some unnecessary possessions like Namibia and parts of German East Africa as additional compensation
 
All of Germany's African colonies had already been taken by the British (and/or the South Africans) with the exception of about half of German East Africa. (OTL they finally surrendered in November of 1918.) And end to the fighting in Europe simply would free up the resources that Britain needed to finish securing German East Africa, as they would suddenly have hundreds of thousands of soldiers that are no longer fighting on the Western Front.
 
All of Germany's African colonies had already been taken by the British (and/or the South Africans) with the exception of about half of German East Africa. (OTL they finally surrendered in November of 1918.) And end to the fighting in Europe simply would free up the resources that Britain needed to finish securing German East Africa, as they would suddenly have hundreds of thousands of soldiers that are no longer fighting on the Western Front.

That assumes that fighting in Europe ends with Britain driven off a la 1940, as opposed to an armistice on all fronts stemming from British bankruptcy, which is probably more likely. In that case, Germany might successfully argue for keeping Tanganyika.
 
Apologies, Lammergeiers, for the matter of the east. If Germany withdrew, that would indeed help it out. But that would permit the USSR to reclaim the lands of the former Russian Empire (which cannot realistically resist Soviet power in a prolonged war) and thus weaken Germany in the long run. Also, maintaining a standing army while also occupying France against fierce French opposition would suffice to draw heavily on Germany's funds.

Anyhow, with the former given true ITTL, German presence in the pacific is the compensation for Britain not losing territory.

Oh dear. Let me try to get this across as simply as I possibly can.

1. Even a WW1-victorious Germany has absolutely no way of taking any territory, colonial or otherwise, from Britain.
2. Even a WW1-victorious Germany has absolutely no way of retaining any colonies in the Pacific or most of Africa because its navy is much weaker than Britain's, and very little ability to retain colonies in North Africa.
3. In the WW1 era, Germany's naval inferiority to Britain is certain. There is nothing Germany can do to change this that Imperial Germany would realistically do.
4. Even a WW1-victorious Germany has absolutely nothing with which it can threaten Britain.


I hope that the point is clear now.

{edit} I apologise if this counts as too rude.
 
Last edited:
Victorious Germany would be utterly exhausted in enforcing Brest-Litovsk and dealing with the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary's collapses.
 

tenthring

Banned
I think this military dictatorship thing is overblow. Useless Kaiser. Reichstag with limited power. Not quite universal democracy. All of that was true before WWI. But it was still going in a liberal direction, and on many economic matters they were more liberal then places like the UK (first to implement welfare state). People aren't going to make Luddendorf dictator when the war is over.

France is better able to withstand a loss without radicalization because it has a much longer tradition of real democracy. It's also a lesser power then Germany, there is no way the French are going to beat the Germans in another war, and there is no way the UK would support some radical France.

Victorious Germany would be utterly exhausted in enforcing Brest-Litovsk and dealing with the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary's collapses.
Bingo.

I also don't think they hold on to Ukraine that long, though it may become a German friendly independent state.

As for colonialism it would have to end some time. And the way it ended OTL was terrible, so I doubt we could do worse.

Overall CP win is an improvement over OTL, though keeping two caveats:

1) Huge unknowable butterflies

2) Since OTL turned out the worst it possibly could you could make the case that from a 1918 probabilistic outcome perspective (not what happened, but the chances of all possible outcomes) that an Entente win was better.
 
<I>Would a Central Powers (as in OTL; Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Ottoman Empire) victory be for the better of history?</I>

Under what circumstances and when does the CP get the victory? If Germany sweeps into Paris in September 1914...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm

But if it must involve an additional two years of war then harsher penalties will be present. I expect Germany might then annex Luxembourg, Belgium east of the Meuse, and maybe set up a puppet government in Franche-Comte. Also, the rest of Europe will be turned into very pro-German satellites. Austria will implode and the German speaking portions of it will join Germany itself, probably along with Bohemia which will be slowly assimilated.

<I>Many scenarios of a CP victory in WWI have a neutral US with an eventual CP victory. In all seriousness, what would happen?</I>

Germany is likely to lose if the US gets involved, it becomes much harder to win with a continent-spanning opponent joining your enemies. It also means the US rises but more slowly.

<i>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.</I>

France would already be asked to pay dearly but much of her industrial capacity would be lost in the territory ceded/occupied by Germany. Expect a fascist dictatorship to rise as the Third Republic falls because of its failure to retake Alsace-Lorraine and its loss of additional territory. This new regime will find it very difficult to rebuild nationally and would probably require loans to do so, possibly from Britain or the US (I doubt they would accept German capital).

<I>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.</I>

Not necessarily, these "Cordon Sanitaire" nations are not likely to be huge fans of Berlin either. While not as bad as Nazi occupation the idea of cultural superiority was still there and German will be taught while local languages will be highly discouraged. Though there will probably be a lot Yiddish and Hebrew speakers in generations to come even if Israel does not exist.

<I>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.</I>

UK nearly went socialist regardless in the strikes of 1926, if they end up losing the war early then I doubt they lose much other than some trade privileges or basing rights. After a long war they might sell a colony or to Germany (more likely they demand African colonies from Germany as a price) but even then it will not come cheap, Germany has no means of projecting power to the sea and both sides know that.

<I>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.</I>

AH is dead, the question is only when. Expect Austria and Bohemia, maybe Gallicia too, to move into German control while the Hungarians set up their own state out of most of the leftovers (OTL Hungary + Transylvania + Croatia, +/- Bosnia, +/- Slovakia). Romania would likely be a German puppet either way and probably unaffected. If Gallicia wants to join Ukraine badly enough it might even be accepted by the powers in Berlin.

<I>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). </I>

I disagree that this is a certainty, there is enough impetus to reform the nation that the Ottomans might survive, and they might also get some territory as a peace condition with Russia. If they have Azerbaijan then the oil money from there will certainly help.


<I>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.</I>

Italy is likely to keep most of what she already has unless things move later into 1916 or so, but then unless Venice is occupied her losses will not be that much. She will eventually be brought into the German fold as a stronger satellite. Germany will rule the continent and become a dominant language of education, commerce, and engineering in Europe. Without the problems of reparations and loans there might not be a stock market bubble and thus no Depression, but expect technology to keep developing. Germany will not allow any power in Europe that would compete with its own and look for Russia to see the Whites supported by Germany if at all possible, Berlin wants to see Russia tear itself apart or at least be weak enough to deal with if a future war develops. If the Russian monarchy survives it would not be surprising if one of the Russian princesses marries a Hohenzollern. But WWII might be avoided entirely, and along with it a massive delay in the Civil Rights Movement, decolonization, Women's Rights, the Space Program, nuclear technology, and a lot of the things we take for granted OTL.
 
I'm an anglophile and detest that militaristic uber-macho Kaiserreich, but Wilhelm was no Hitler - there was a very strong and very vibrant labour movement allowed for example, a functioning civil society. Sure the army would have been even more honoured, but we are talking about Vilhelmine Germany, it already was mindlessly honoured. Victorious powers rarely have coups or revolutions. If we then would avoid Hitler and Stalin in power in the post-war decades, it really does sound like quite a tempting scenario. However, it seems many posit a Leninist Russia, presumably followed by a Stalinist one - would Germany, supreme in Europe, really have allowed such an anti-monarchist pariah regime for realpolitikal reasons?

The most important open questions in my view are (considering the possibility of a more stable and pacified Europe than iotl): policy as regards Russia, the British Empire (which probably would have had some degree of US support) and conquered Europe. Would there have been a return to relatively stable conditions or would there have been great instability followed sooner or later by a new world war?
 
I don't see another world war, but the collapse of the Austro-hungarian empire and the Ottoman Empire would lead to various conflicts within the region that pushes Germany to the limits, while on top of enforcing the terms of Brest-litovsk and maintaining control over African colonies. IOW, Germany is going to be utterly worn out by 1937 and may require British and even Russian help for trying to keep order in Europe and the Middle East.
 
Top