Realistic terms after entente defeat?

Realistically, I could see the French Empire being largely dismantled and divided by the CP, while Britain only loses Egypt, Kuwait and Sudan, which are returned to the Ottomans. Russia totally collapsing isn't going to happen, as long as the Germans don't send Lenin from Switzerland to Russia, but there would be a severe internal struggle, and we could still see the rise of a USSR-like state...perhaps run by the Mensheviks?

No matter when the Germans win, Britain will not lose any colonies because Germany has no cards it can effectively play. The submarine threat in World War One was short-lived while there was even less prospect of a succesful invasion of Britain during World War I than there was in World War II, simply because the Germans had no air power to even the odds slightly, which wouldn't have helped them anyway.
 
No matter when the Germans win, Britain will not lose any colonies because Germany has no cards it can effectively play. The submarine threat in World War One was short-lived while there was even less prospect of a succesful invasion of Britain during World War I than there was in World War II, simply because the Germans had no air power to even the odds slightly, which wouldn't have helped them anyway.

That might depend. Von-Lettow need only the good fortune of the governor dieing off somehow and he would have been able to take far greater advantage of events, then roll in any direction he so chooses. Might make relations with the South Africans more tense considering who made up his army, but the Boers cracking African skulls would have only helped the German situation in the region. Who's up for a Rhodesian buffer state?
 
4. I take this Entente defeat must come early, since I can't see the Entente losing past 1917. That means Italy would probably not join the war, neither would Greece and Romania. (The PoD have to be early, and with a clearer CP advantage countries would be vary about joining the Entente)

I don't see Italy staying neutral; the Italians had plenty of territorial ambitions against either side, and were also eager to get involved in the war to prove that they were a proper European Great Power. At the latest, Italy would join the CP once the war is a foregone conclusion, so that they can try to get their claims on Savoy, Nice, Corsica, and Tunisia. More likely, once the CP's position gets strong enough Italy accepts a deal to enter the CP in exchange for some of it's claims against A-H; less than they wanted OTL, but better than nothing.

I could also see Romania going CP once the war is a foregone conclusion; Bessarabia is a passable consolation prize.

What Greece does probably depends on how Salonica develops in the ATL.
 
Where there any examples of population exchange before that of Greece and Turkey? Something that could be used for the Italians to move those who wanted to join Italy into Tunisia or Savoy, with the possible eviction of the French settlers. I don't suppose the Austrians, Hungarians, Turks, or Germans had any thoughts on having Tunisia as a sattelite? The internal structure of the victors, such as if the gains went straight to Prussia or if Austria felt they shouldn't have to give up land from their part to expand Hungary into nonMagyar lands may be a sticking point.
 
That might depend. Von-Lettow need only the good fortune of the governor dieing off somehow and he would have been able to take far greater advantage of events, then roll in any direction he so chooses. Might make relations with the South Africans more tense considering who made up his army, but the Boers cracking African skulls would have only helped the German situation in the region. Who's up for a Rhodesian buffer state?

Not me. The East African theatre was militarily insiginficant except for reasons of German pride; I imagine in a CP victory world it would be the subject of a lot of bad action movies and books... There is no way Britain would give up any part of its colonies because of Lettow any better than in OTL (which was pretty incredible anyway).
 
Where there any examples of population exchange before that of Greece and Turkey? Something that could be used for the Italians to move those who wanted to join Italy into Tunisia or Savoy, with the possible eviction of the French settlers. I don't suppose the Austrians, Hungarians, Turks, or Germans had any thoughts on having Tunisia as a sattelite? The internal structure of the victors, such as if the gains went straight to Prussia or if Austria felt they shouldn't have to give up land from their part to expand Hungary into nonMagyar lands may be a sticking point.

For Tunisia (who was even offered by Germany to Italy just to stay neutral, so we can say that was considered on the italian zone of influence) it's very simple, there were already an italian minority there and frankly if become an italian colony expect a lot of emigration there expecially from the South and Veneto. For Savoy, it's a lot more difficult, it's like South Tyrol a land with very few italian speaking but with a lot of historical tie and strategic position (more defensible border), if the italian government want to expell the non-italian speaking part of the population we are talking of almost total depopulation, it's more probably a great effort of italianization and in sent much emigrants here.
 
That might depend. Von-Lettow need only the good fortune of the governor dieing off somehow and he would have been able to take far greater advantage of events, then roll in any direction he so chooses.

I don't see any particular way in which Vorbeck replacing the civil authorities would negate the overwhelming material and logistical advantages of the Entente in that theatre. He did incredibly well as it was.

Might make relations with the South Africans more tense considering who made up his army, but the Boers cracking African skulls would have only helped the German situation in the region.

Much as South Africa was adamant about making no use of its own black manpower, it was never much spooked at a war in East Africa fought largely by black Africans on both sides. Britain's army in East Africa was made up in large part of King's African Rifles from Kenya, with troops also coming from Nigeria and other places.

Afrikaaners are not all Boers, and anyway Germany's attempts to raise African insurrection never went anywhere. The reality of the war for the population on both sides of the line, but especially in the German colony, was growing economic hardship.

Who's up for a Rhodesian buffer state?

A what?
 
No matter when the Germans win, Britain will not lose any colonies because Germany has no cards it can effectively play. The submarine threat in World War One was short-lived while there was even less prospect of a succesful invasion of Britain during World War I than there was in World War II, simply because the Germans had no air power to even the odds slightly, which wouldn't have helped them anyway.
Egypt, Sudan and Kuwait were de jure Ottoman. When war started, Britain annexed them officially, so post-war, I could see it revert it to being de jure Ottoman, while de facto British.
 
Egypt, Sudan and Kuwait were de jure Ottoman. When war started, Britain annexed them officially, so post-war, I could see it revert it to being de jure Ottoman, while de facto British.

What would it take, short of Germany invading those regions, to see Egypt and Sudan become de facto Ottoman territory?

Kuwait seems really easy by comparison.
 
Top