Place In the Sun: What If Italy Joined the Central Powers? (1.0)

[Jaenera Targaryen]

The biggest evidence of Germany winning a future war is that in the 21st Century the Hohenzollerns are still ruling Germany. Considering how vengeful the French are, there's just no way the Hohenzollerns would be allowed to keep their crowns in the event of an Allied victory. And before you say 'Japan kept their Emperor even with how vengeful America was after WWII', that's apples and oranges. The Emperor of Japan has a unique stabilizing factor over his country that the German Emperor does not have, thus none of the Allies would have any reason to preserve the German monarchy in the event of their victory.

Also, note that in late-20th Century, Germans are explicitly still mentioned as celebrating their victory in WWI. There's no way they would do so if they lost the next war, as a postwar Germany would be indoctrinated ala OTL into seeing their past as pure evil until they were hammered flat and then remade in the Wallies' image.

Ditto for the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire is shown alive and well in the 21st Century, and most terrifying of all, is able to openly deny the Armenian Genocide in a way even modern Turkey cannot. And there is absolutely no way the Ottomans would be around and able to do that if they and the other CP lost the next war.

 

[Iraiva]

The British have no reason to ally with A Red France and the problem only gets worse with a Red Russia. They have there own problems to deal with.

The yanks will not supply the British reread the chapter on the 1916 election the loans givin out in the war caused a depression after the collapse of the ente. The yanks will see this rematch and say fuck this. And Wilson's internationalism has been discredited. The American culture has been to altered to support the war.

Yes the Germans have no reason to provoke the yanks has that would fuck them over. Its basic geopolitics that powers will not try to fuck themselves over.

One of the Britishers' problems is the current German hegemony over Europe. They would like to break that very much. So, they have no choice but to ally with communist powers.
Remember even if both France and Russia are communist it does not mean they will have the same form of communism and nor will they cooperate over everything. OTL USSR and China are a good comparison for this. So an allied victory with the help of a communist France and Russia does not necessarily mean a Red hegemony over Europe.
Not allowing one single power to be the hegemon of Europe has been the lynchpin of British foreign policy for two centuries now.

The yanks supplying the British depends upon the state of US-Germany relations at the time. You cannot say for sure that it will never happen, and neither can you say that it will happen at this point in time. The discrediting of Wilson's policies don't matter much 25 years later if US-German policies are freezing cold.

If the US is supporting the British in a significant manner, will the Germans not pursue their old U-boat strategy to attack allied shipping in the Atlantic? A UK supplied by the US could drag a war on for a long period of time. The Germans have no choice but to try and stop the flow of supplies coming to the UK.

 

[Iraiva]

Germany took Britain, France and most of Russia all on its own while the USA was increasingly helping and it still had to join in to turn the tide. Here France is a shadow of itself while the other two are far weaker, plus you will have Austria and a stronger Germany plus both Italy and Ottomans -actually living up to their names as Great Powers instead of OTL- with vested interest in not letting France and Russia respectively win anything. That is just not a recipe that makes anyone think 'We can take them'.

So while it is possible for the USA to join an ongoing WW2 a few years in, the issue is getting it to start and last that long given the disparity at hand here.

That is not to say the factors building up to another war aren't present, given the people involved an ending of WW1 not like that is really really unlikely, but without the near perfect set-up for WW2 of OTL it would take longer for things come to a head again. Decades longer even, especially for this TL, at which point technology has marched on and that WW2 would look more like 'Cold War gone hot'.

Now if people actually wrote that then I would be interested, but I am rather tired of punchclock WW2 twenty years later no matter what.

France is a shadow of itself, true, however Austria-Hungary (Danubia) has just gone through an existential civil war and Italy and the Ottomans acted with the similar level of competence they showed during OTL WW1.
Germany itself is in a much stronger position, yes, but none of this means too much. Britain, France and Russia all despise the position they are currently in and right now the US is not too happy with the Germans, which could change for the better or the worse.

Of course, ITTL WW2 could happen in the 40s or in the 60s or never at all. If US-German relations turn for the better, it's difficult to say if a Britain with a much weakened France and a stagnant Russia go to war against a resurgent Germany, a more confident Italy and the OE and an admittedly weaker A-H Empire (Danubia) with a gaping Hungary sized hole in its chest.

The biggest evidence of Germany winning a future war is that in the 21st Century the Hohenzollerns are still ruling Germany. Considering how vengeful the French are, there's just no way the Hohenzollerns would be allowed to keep their crowns in the event of an Allied victory. And before you say 'Japan kept their Emperor even with how vengeful America was after WWII', that's apples and oranges. The Emperor of Japan has a unique stabilizing factor over his country that the German Emperor does not have, thus none of the Allies would have any reason to preserve the German monarchy in the event of their victory.

Also, note that in late-20th Century, Germans are explicitly still mentioned as celebrating their victory in WWI. There's no way they would do so if they lost the next war, as a postwar Germany would be indoctrinated ala OTL into seeing their past as pure evil until they were hammered flat and then remade in the Wallies' image.

Ditto for the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire is shown alive and well in the 21st Century, and most terrifying of all, is able to openly deny the Armenian Genocide in a way even modern Turkey cannot. And there is absolutely no way the Ottomans would be around and able to do that if they and the other CP lost the next war.

This could mean either a CP victory in the ITTL WW2 or that a WW2 never took place at all.

 

[naraht]

France is a shadow of itself, true, however Austria-Hungary (Danubia) has just gone through an existential civil war and Italy and the Ottomans acted with the similar level of competence they showed during OTL WW1.
Germany itself is in a much stronger position, yes, but none of this means too much. Britain, France and Russia all despise the position they are currently in and right now the US is not too happy with the Germans, which could change for the better or the worse.

Of course, ITTL WW2 could happen in the 40s or in the 60s or never at all. If US-German relations turn for the better, it's difficult to say if a Britain with a much weakened France and a stagnant Russia go to war against a resurgent Germany, a more confident Italy and the OE and an admittedly weaker A-H Empire (Danubia) with a gaping Hungary sized hole in its chest.


This could mean either a CP victory in the ITTL WW2 or that a WW2 never took place at all.

Or possibly a "tie". I'm of the belief that the technology of WWI was fairly unique in allowing for a tie relative to the technology of 20 years after (or prior), but I thought I'd put it out there...

 

[Kylia]

Well, it depends on if the combatants have an ideological capacity for a tie. I'm not sure a communist france could accept a 'tie' with the bourgois pig germans.

 

[Iraiva]

Or possibly a "tie". I'm of the belief that the technology of WWI was fairly unique in allowing for a tie relative to the technology of 20 years after (or prior), but I thought I'd put it out there...

Possible, but unlikely. The concept of 'Total War' was in vogue at this time after all.

 

[toaster404]

How does Germany fare against the USA in this timeline? In economic power and power projection.

 

[Kaiser Wilhelm the Tenth]

How does Germany fare against the USA in this timeline? In economic power and power projection.

As of TTL's 1918? They're a long way off from one another and their interests neither overlap nor conflict. The SMS Wohlstadt incident and Kaiser Wilhelm's embarassing gaffes notwithstanding, both nations are focussing on developing a modus videndi which both sides can live with. Economically, the US is continuing to rise as it did in OTL, but the Mitteleuropa bloc might well prove a serious competitor in the coming years and decades...

 

[thekingsguard]

Kind of shocked the US didn't annex any of Mexico.

 

[wietze]

Kind of shocked the US didn't annex any of Mexico.

No doubt there will be a whole bunch of senators and congress persons and politicians who share this vision, and come re-election time that will be rather highlighted.

 

[Jaenera Targaryen]

Kind of shocked the US didn't annex any of Mexico.

Realistically-speaking, too many politicians would be against it. The Southern Democrats alone would raise merry hell about it in Congress, and they probably have enough pull with not just the Northern Democrats but even a few Republicans to make trying to get any Mexican clay a gesture in futility.

 

[FickleCrossroad]

Realistically-speaking, too many politicians would be against it. The Southern Democrats alone would raise merry hell about it in Congress, and they probably have enough pull with not just the Northern Democrats but even a few Republicans to make trying to get any Mexican clay a gesture in futility.

Flipside, what about the argument of annexation to deliberately weaken Southern Democrats? Over fifty years after the ACW, I would imagine how tantalizing the concept of making Southern Dems less relevant would be to anyone else.

 

[Kylia]

Flipside, what about the argument of annexation to deliberately weaken Southern Democrats? Over fifty years after the ACW, I would imagine how tantalizing the concept of making Southern Dems less relevant would be to anyone else.

which would make for an interesting story for someone in this timeline to write on divergenthistory.com in the early 21st century 🤣

 

[bguy]

Kind of shocked the US didn't annex any of Mexico.

The Philippine-American War pretty much killed any American interest in trying to directly annex any more territory. Much easier to just install a puppet government that will grant favorable economic concessions to the US.

No doubt there will be a whole bunch of senators and congress persons and politicians who share this vision, and come re-election time that will be rather highlighted.

By 1916 the US had already passed legislation stating its intention to prepare the Philippines for independence. If the US people and government weren't even interested in keeping the Philippines why would they possibly support annexing Mexican territory?

 

[ByzantineMan]

America doesn't benefit from a direct annexation of any Mexican territory. They already are getting the fruits of Mexico's resources, direct annexation would be a headache that just has no actual reason to happen. Now, the pseudo-independent Sonora could do things to encourage American immigration, and we'd see a Texas 2: Sonoran Boogaloo. Still unlikely to happen though.

 

[wietze]

By 1916 the US had already passed legislation stating its intention to prepare the Philippines for independence. If the US people and government weren't even interested in keeping the Philippines why would they possibly support annexing Mexican territory?

because the territory would be contiguous to the us. there is a huge difference between something far away, and stretching your borderlines.

 

[Kaiser Wilhelm the Tenth]

America doesn't benefit from a direct annexation of any Mexican territory. They already are getting the fruits of Mexico's resources, direct annexation would be a headache that just has no actual reason to happen. Now, the pseudo-independent Sonora could do things to encourage American immigration, and we'd see a Texas 2: Sonoran Boogaloo. Still unlikely to happen though.

I wholeheartedly agree. To add to that, Alvaro Obregon is Sonoran and is quite important in the new order (even if he's not one of the Triunvirato). Cutting him off from his Sonoran base wouldn't do anyone any favours.

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

because the territory would be contiguous to the us. there is a huge difference between something far away, and stretching your borderlines.

Hawaii says hi.

 

[bguy]

because the territory would be contiguous to the us. there is a huge difference between something far away, and stretching your borderlines.

Not when stretching your borderlines means gobbling up millions of people who speak a different language, are from a different ethnic group, follow a different religion, and who will take violent exception to being forcible added to your nation. That's taking on a massive undertaking that's certain to prove very bloody and very expensive (War Plan Green assumed the US would need 250,000 men just to hold down the northern Mexican states) for very little gain.

Seriously, can you name any American politician post-1865 who ever advocated the US trying to annex any part of Mexico?

 

[Gabingston]

Not when stretching your borderlines means gobbling up millions of people who speak a different language, are from a different ethnic group, follow a different religion, and who will take violent exception to being forcible added to your nation. That's taking on a massive undertaking that's certain to prove very bloody and very expensive (War Plan Green assumed the US would need 250,000 men just to hold down the northern Mexican states) for very little gain.

Seriously, can you name any American politician post-1865 who ever advocated the US trying to annex any part of Mexico?

I'm not sure how many Mexicans lived in Sonora or Baja in the 1920s. Still, the U.S. got a big enough bite out of Mexico to where they didn't need any more of it.