The '19 Revolution

Typo

Banned
I can't see Germany enforcing any sort of harsh terms against Britain, if nothing else then because they have no real way of enforcing those terms. I can't see anything too radical happening to Britain either, it's a pretty stable constitutional monarchy after all.

France though, will depend on how it loses. A loss in 1914 would look a lot different than a loss in 1918.
 
Maybe, maybe not. Had the war ended in the Spring of 1915, it would have appeared that the British Army was a spent force as the vast majority of the BEF was dead or injured.

It is questionable whether High Command would have been able to anticipate that a conscript army of non professional men could become regular and reliable soldiers. (one being my great grand father!!)

However British seapower was completely untouched in the Spring of 1915. And yes it is that which convinces me of your argument that the Germans might have found it hard to follow through their victory onto the Brits.

I agree that Britain would have been free of the kind of far right/left conflicts as endured on the continent. Mainly as there has never been that much stomach for those types of politics and the system either absorbs such extremism into the mainstream in a harmless way or just blocks them. The First past the post electoral system does have some merits.

I guess as well that Asquith would have been forced to resign and a more hardcore Churchillian Pro Imperial government would have followed. I imagine that they woulb blame the French, be scornful of European politics, look to the Empire and as even after a year of fighting be heavily indebted to the Americans.

However what would have undermined any bellicosity from the Tories would have been public opinion. Which would have probably blamed the French (there was tremendous anxiety from the start on the part of the ordinary Tommy about allying themselves with the Frenchies.) and some outrage over the tremendous numbers killed for so little gain.

However I still feel that Germany would have attempted to broker a tough deal with Britain. Some access to imperial markets, a Boer run South Africa and Ireland loosened from the Empire (both would have temporary endured that for the sake of a little more freedom, until of course they tired of the new colonial power.) and I guess an acceptance that Germany was the dominant European continental power.

France and Belguim I am afraid would have endured a very tricky time. I can imagine the German fleet larging it in the French Atlantic ports, Antwerpen and Ostende all armed with Krupps heavy long range guns on the English coast as a reminder of who is in charge.

That scenario would make for an interesting fantasy wargame. RAF bombers attacking German held Belgian ports armed with 20's AA and heavy artillery guns. Dover and Essex being shelled to bits in response.
 
Last edited:
South Africa was Boer-run. Not completely, true, but I do think it would be hard for even for the Boers and the Germans to disenfranchise whites.
As for Ireland... sorry, but Germany trying to enforce independence counts as harsh terms. I don't see why you are so fixated with Ireland, by the way. Germany wasn't!

Accepting Germany as continental hegemon is a given (though they wouldn't mention it in the peace treaty). Due to the situation in Europe, a white peace between the British and German Empires means that Germany is the continental hegemon.

Access to Imperial markets did happen. The people positive to Free Trade kept Imperial Preference at a low enough level (that is, they will keep it at a level where it is possible to trade with them, just a bit costly), so that shouldn't be a problem (besides, Germany would find Mitteleuropa more important, at least at first).
 
Maybe, maybe not. Had the war ended in the Spring of 1915, it would have appeared that the British Army was a spent force as the vast majority of the BEF was dead or injured.

It is questionable whether High Command would have been able to anticipate that a conscript army of non professional men could become regular and reliable soldiers. (one being my great grand father!!)

However British seapower was completely untouched in the Spring of 1915. And yes it is that which convinces me of your argument that the Germans might have found it hard to follow through their victory onto the Brits.

By hard to follow through, the word your obviously grasping for is impossible. The Germans had no way to enforce terms on the British, and if they tried to continue the war the British would just buckle down Napoleon style.

Also, I don't think that France would surrender with the fall of Paris in 1914. The government was preparing to move south, and the British had declared war, so from the French perspective if they just hung on they would be able to rescue some kind of victory. The Germans would be facing long supply lines, and a very long front line, since the Brits would probably be able hold Channel ports as salients.

Even without American intervention in '17-'18 I still think the Entente have a pretty good shot at winning the war. Germany was in worse straights then the Allies, and if the Allies could weather the Spring Offensive (which they did with relatively little American help OTL) then I think that they could probably start pushing the Germans back. The Spring Offensives were really the last push the Germans could do. It failed and the German leadership realized it was over. Without the American intervention, this realization would probably come later, but come it would. IMHO it is quite difficult to get a German victory in WWI (either in '14 or later) and really requires the French and British to do something stupid.

Snip British politics

The POD that I had set out in the beginning of this scenario was that the war ends in '17-'18, due to American non-intervention.

However I still feel that Germany would have attempted to broker a tough deal with Britain. Some access to imperial markets, a Boer run South Africa and Ireland loosened from the Empire (both would have temporary endured that for the sake of a little more freedom, until of course they tired of the new colonial power.) and I guess an acceptance that Germany was the dominant European continental power.

If the Germans try to do something like this then the British could go French Revolutionary/Napoleonic War on the Germans and start to do everything they can to bring down the new order in Europe. This would probably include continuing operations in the Ottoman Empire (given the huge surplus of troops that are no longer engaged on the Western Front I think that the Arab Front will swing hard toward the British) and a much greater emphasis on getting a friendly government in Russia. Also supporting the Italians, who will probably be facing rather large demands from the Central Powers, may be an option.

If the war in France ends and the British do not sign a peace, then there is also the possibility that the Americans will finally intervene. If the Anglo-American alliance that has made major gains in the Ottoman Empire and in Russia, then Germany itself may collapse (remember the failed Revolution in '19), or France could reject the cease-fire with Germany. Georges Clemencauc will definitely be very against the the surrender and with the infusion of American manpower in say late '18 or early '19 the French may be able to restart the war. If you look at German war-aims, then the OTL Versailles will look lenient by comparison.

France and Belguim I am afraid would have endured a very tricky time. I can imagine the German fleet larging it in the French Atlantic ports, Antwerpen and Ostende all armed with Krupps heavy long range guns on the English coast as a reminder of who is in charge.

The German fleet would have a fun time trying to get by the British Fleet in its trip to the French Atlantic ports, plus that kind of move would probably draw a reaction from the Americans (who now that France has been defeated don't understand why their shipping is still being sunk.).

That scenario would make for an interesting fantasy wargame. RAF bombers attacking German held Belgian ports armed with 20's AA and heavy artillery guns. Dover and Essex being shelled to bits in response.

If Germany has to continue to endure war-time rationing and fighting I think it would collapse in short order.
 
Bearing in mind that, even if France won WW1, they were close to some kind of coup -colonel La Rocque comes to my mind, for instance-, having a crushing defeat in 1918 would give another Comune for sure. Dunno the side, Red or White... Both?
 
IThe French will probably not immediately fall into a left-right civil war. I think that the Germans could probably get a peace, and the French government could probably get it passed, and then the Third Republic would kind of limp along.

So no troop mutiny? Okay.


I'm thinking after a particularly violent 20's that includes several violent strikes (insert geographic-name) Massacre, you have King Edward VII do some rather stupid political things, and be supported in them by the hard-right conservatives (read people like Churchill). Edward uses his rights to make some more conservative-supported bad political moves and add in a rabble rousing Labour Leader (Mosley) and boom we have a major political crisis.

So, this is Italy, with concentration camps. Fascism, then.

A Republican sentiment seems very odd; particularly as it was Imperial Germany that was the victor.
The divide Poland agreement was made post-Versailles, so the political conditions that created it will never exist OTL, since Germany will win WWI. In fact, all post-Versailles stuff is really out of bounds as a marker of German moves, since the political conditions will not exist in ATL.

This stuff was all done in the 1920s, when the same people that were in hthe Imperial ARmy were in the Weimar military. It shows that they'd be willing to hold their noses and work for a Bolsheveik state, and therefore your argument seems surprising.

I think it's possible they intervene; I just don't find it probable.

the behavior of German Friekorps post-war (killing every potential red they could get their hands on) that the Germans would intervene in Russia and attempt to place a Romanov on the throne.

But the behavior of the Freikorps is post-Versailles, and therefore out of bounds since the political condition will not exist ATL. ;)
 
I dont disagree with any of the points made. Which is the delight of AH. Thats why these forums are such good fun.

I do think that had the German army had touched Paris, then all the divisions of France would have cracked. The war would indeed been prolonged in 1915 with a govt in Bordeaux (ala 1940), but Paris might have dissolved in to a new commune or just plain rioting.

But I guess the British -paralysed by the destruction of its professional army, mounting debt and probably a growing anti French opinion, they would have dropped the French asap. And maybe would have reconvened to broker a deal from where they thought they were strongest.

An alternative thought is how would British policy been if stay if a. they had remained neutral in 1914 and then b. what policy would they take to a rump France and a righteous Germany, now dominant on the continent?
 
So no troop mutiny? Okay.

Well, the mutinies were not violent (eg they didn't kill their officers Russia-style), and I think the Third Republic longevity was owed largely to the fact that no-one had a better or more popular alternative. I don't think that anyone would right after the war, though the possibility of a left-wing coup and a Commune is a definite possibility.

I think I'm leaning towards France to be a left-leaning authoritarian state. A really nasty strain of Socialism that combines nationalist sentiment and state control of industry (maybe even some anti-Semitism). You could call it National Socialism, but that would be lazy.

With the chaos and lost economic opportunity in France, plus the German annexations (which would probably come with the loss in '18), then I think that you're going to see a lot of settlers moving to Algeria. I'm not sure what the population of the place was at that time, but with France's Colonial Empire so emasculated (as presumably it would be by Germany) is it possible that Algeria would be brought more directly into France? Perhaps the socialist government in Paris decides that Arabs can be good Frenchmen (the need to more manpower for the next round with Germany is going to force them to get creative, and this seems logical from the standpoint of simply counting warm bodies who could potentially be put in uniform).

So, this is Italy, with concentration camps. Fascism, then.

A Republican sentiment seems very odd; particularly as it was Imperial Germany that was the victor.

I'm thinking that the feeling will be linked to anti-German sentiments. The royal family was very tied to German royal families (was in fact a German royal family, Coburg-Saxe-Gotha, before they became Windsors in '17) by marriage and ancestory. I'm thinking the British could go towards a kind of anti-monarchial corporatism, led by the Labour Party.

Concentration Camps may have been going to far. I think I'm starting to go more toward a sort of France in Algeria post-WWII kind of model, where the British troops in Ireland basically wipe the IRA out, and then decide the civilian leadership is not sufficently supportive of their cause, so decide to replace the government. Or a peace could be made, and that sets off the coup attempt. The troops would have a rather large amount of stabbed-in-the-back feeling to pull upon, and probably have support from more conservative elements in Britain (since Britain is also gripped by worker unrest). The reaction to the coup could be republicanism if the King gives backing to the coup-plotters (or if Prince Edward does). A coup attempt, followed by a short civil war, followed by the Republic of Great Britain being declared?

This stuff was all done in the 1920s, when the same people that were in the Imperial Army were in the Weimar military. It shows that they'd be willing to hold their noses and work for a Bolsheveik state, and therefore your argument seems surprising.

I think it's possible they intervene; I just don't find it probable.

Intervening would have seemed relatively straightforward though. You give the Russians some guns that you now have from demobilization, help the Whites take St. Petersburg, and then let them fight it out from there. You release POWs to the White forces. I think that this would give the Whites a fighting chance and even if the Bolsheviks are not totally defeated, it will certainly make Russia continue its bloody civil war, which can only be a good thing for exhausted Germany.

But the behavior of the Freikorps is post-Versailles, and therefore out of bounds since the political condition will not exist ATL. ;)

I am a hypocrite and you caught me. I hope you'll find it in your heart to one day forgive me.:(

My point was that the Germans were willing to commit atrocities in the name of anti-Communism on the home front, they would probably be willing to commit atrocities in a foreign country fighting for the same thing.

The Germans cooperation with the Russians was an alliance of convience. If they could have wiped the Bolsheviks out, then they would have. OTL both were pariah states in 1920. ATL Germany is the winner, and Russia the pariah, the weak, communist pariah. I don't think much of its chances.
 
Brief thoughts: (with apologies for only having skimmed the foregoing posts)

1) I have to imagine France's political turmoil will take a very different tack than Germany's OTL. Firstly, whereas the Weimar Republic felt too close for comfort to the USSR, France will not be surrounded by ideologically hostile regimes (at first). If France goes communist, it's likely to antagonize the Germans (if the Russian Revolution and Civil War go per OTL) because they will be surrouned by Reds. If France takes a rightist approach, it will be seeking a rematch against Germany, which won't be very easy, with an isolationist America and a continentally bitter UK. Given the phenomenon of the mutinies, I almost wonder if an all out civil war might result, with the potential for a divided France not insignificiant.

2) I think we may overstate the case for troubles in the UK. Firstly, because the Troubles were pretty bad to begin with. I take the most likely peace for the UK being status quo ante bellum (with some colonial changes that if anything lessen the burden of empire). I don't see this being enough to push the British into all out Irisih bashing, particularly when it will distract from productive reform.

3) While Roosevelt may make a lot of noise, I'd imagine the eventual American reaction will be to confirm its isolation in reaction to post war anxiety / chaos (which in some form every one seems to take for granted). Also, OTL TR died in 1919 (though without the war, his health may improve due to a lack of his son dying). However, the USA will probably still emerge as a creditor nation and hence isolation will prove, as OTL, increasingly harder to justify.

Since German policy will probably tend toward some kind of economic union to facilitate German economic dominion, I'd guess that some kind of communism could easily take root in France. It's probably very different from Soviet / Lenninism, but enough that Germany will have to deal with hostile regimes on its flanks. This probably leads the UK to seek rapprochement with Germany since to do business in Europe will require trading with them.
 
Well, the mutinies were not violent (eg they didn't kill their officers Russia-style), and I think the Third Republic longevity was owed largely to the fact that no-one had a better or more popular alternative. I don't think that anyone would right after the war, though the possibility of a left-wing coup and a Commune is a definite possibility.

Makes sense. I was imagining that, say, paris falls; and left wing communes spring up across France.

Although then they are gunned down.

A really nasty strain of Socialism that combines nationalist sentiment and state control of industry (maybe even some anti-Semitism). You could call it National Socialism, but that would be lazy.

Bonapartism?

I think you'd see a certain willingness to work with Germany, as you saw post Vichy.

With the chaos and lost economic opportunity in France, plus the German annexations (which would probably come with the loss in '18), then I think that you're going to see a lot of settlers moving to Algeria.

Hrmm. My only problem is that Germany is on the ropes by this point too. So I don't know how great its chances of inflicting a crushing blow in the west are.

Algeria's a neat idea.

I'm thinking that the feeling will be linked to anti-German sentiments. The royal family was very tied to German royal families (was in fact a German royal family, Coburg-Saxe-Gotha, before they became Windsors in '17) by marriage and ancestory. I'm thinking the British could go towards a kind of anti-monarchial corporatism, led by the Labour Party.

I'm not so sure. I mean, where theyre any major labour party members who wanted to eliminate the Monarchy? Why?

Anti-Germanism seems a bit odd, given that members of the royal family fought in the war, no?

Britain, for better or worse (mostly better) isn't Russia or Germany.


The troops would have a rather large amount of stabbed-in-the-back feeling to pull upon, and probably have support from more conservative elements in Britain (since Britain is also gripped by worker unrest). The reaction to the coup could be republicanism if the King gives backing to the coup-plotters (or if Prince Edward does). A coup attempt, followed by a short civil war, followed by the Republic of Great Britain being declared?

Anybody who knows more about Britain's domestic politics wanna comment?

Intervening would have seemed relatively straightforward though. You give the Russians some guns that you now have from demobilization, help the Whites take St. Petersburg, and then let them fight it out from there. You release POWs to the White forces. I think that this would give the Whites a fighting chance and even if the Bolsheviks are not totally defeated, it will certainly make Russia continue its bloody civil war, which can only be a good thing for exhausted Germany.

Except exhausted Germany needs markets, no? Russia in this situation won't provide it. Moreover, you run the risk of the Whites appearing to be German stooges.

Trotsky secured the release of Tsarist officers to serve in the Soviet Army in 1920; would they do less here, in the national revolution for the soul of Russia?

::Waves a red flag::

Anyway, it seems to me that this could blow up in Russia's face rather easily.



My point was that the Germans were willing to commit atrocities in the name of anti-Communism on the home front, they would probably be willing to commit atrocities in a foreign country fighting for the same thing.

I understand; but to be blunt, I don't see it as being one and the same.



The Germans cooperation with the Russians was an alliance of convience. If they could have wiped the Bolsheviks out, then they would have. OTL both were pariah states in 1920. ATL Germany is the winner, and Russia the pariah, the weak, communist pariah. I don't think much of its chances.


What's the evidence that they wanted to wipe out the Bolsheveiks?
 
Makes sense. I was imagining that, say, paris falls; and left wing communes spring up across France.

Although then they are gunned down.

Can I just ask, who does the gunning down?
 
Well my main thought is that the number of 'Rightist' soldiers in the experience of defeat is going to relatively few. I don't think crushing any commune is going to be as easy as all that. The Paris Commune lasted two months and it was almost a unique oddity. Here however it seems there shall be plenty of 'leftist' soldiers. More than enough to put up a fight, especially if they hold Paris and possibly some of the other industrial cities.

I think whether or not the Commune would survive is a bit of an open question.
 
Well my main thought is that the number of 'Rightist' soldiers in the experience of defeat is going to relatively few. I don't think crushing any commune is going to be as easy as all that. The Paris Commune lasted two months and it was almost a unique oddity. Here however it seems there shall be plenty of 'leftist' soldiers. More than enough to put up a fight, especially if they hold Paris and possibly some of the other industrial cities.

I think whether or not the Commune would survive is a bit of an open question.

So France could easily fall into a really brutal civil war. Many soldiers blame the civilian government for failing to support them, which could easily result in them supporting some kind of more authoritarian model, whether that model is left or right will largely be determined by how the chips end up falling, and I think that good arguments could be made for both sides.

The desire of the returning soldiers to effect political change will probably mimic that of other returning soldiers attempting to effect political change, that is the organization of "Soldiers' Communes" (parallel to Soldiers Soviets in Russia). This would be a generally leftist movement, one which blames the elite for the losses suffered in the war, and believes that a new social order must be constructed (which boils down into putting the rich up against a wall).

The rightists could argue that the state needs more control, that it was a lack of commitment that led to the loss. While this argument could hold water with German troops who had won the war in the East, and knew they were in France when they "lost", it would not hold water for the French soldiers who knew that they had been squarely and badly beaten by a superior foe. Basically, I think that it would be harder to sell a right-wing "stabbed in the back" myth to the returning soldiers.

That is not to say that the "stabbed in the back" myth will not be propogated. It will. The myth will be part of the left's narrative of greedy/incompetent elite leading the country into ruin.

By 1922 the smoke is clearing and the French Popular Army stands victorious in Paris. After three years of ruinous civil war the militant Left has won, and it seems that Equality is going to be promoted to the detriment of Liberty and Fraternity . . .
 
While this argument could hold water with German troops who had won the war in the East, and knew they were in France when they "lost", it would not hold water for the French soldiers who knew that they had been squarely and badly beaten by a superior foe. Basically, I think that it would be harder to sell a right-wing "stabbed in the back" myth to the returning soldiers.

How does France lose, BTW? This affects a lot.

IMO the odds of Germany allowing a Civil War seem kinda low, since that would result in a cessation of reparations.
 
How does France lose, BTW? This affects a lot.

IMO the odds of Germany allowing a Civil War seem kinda low, since that would result in a cessation of reparations.

Germany had a low-level civil war of its own OTL, so I figured that it was possible. Some kind of coup or failed uprising, with a few months of real fighting in various areas of the country, followed by a year or two of flare-ups while death squads of ex-soldiers clean-up the uprising's left-overs.

The whole "civil war" could be over by the time the Germans finally decide just how much flesh they're going to carve out of France.
 
Here's another thought.

Is a Socialist uprising, based on the Trade Unions, impossible in Britain? Even victorious, Britain witnessed its share of problems OTL.
 
Here's another thought.

Is a Socialist uprising, based on the Trade Unions, impossible in Britain? Even victorious, Britain witnessed its share of problems OTL.

"It is a conflict which, if it is fought out to a conclusion can only end in the overthrow of parliamentary government or its decisive victory."
Winston Churchill,
Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer

That is from the General Strike in 1926. In OTL. I think that given some other things that will probably be going on in a CP victory world, the General Strike could lead to some really serious things.

I am of the opinion that the Irish situation will get far worse in a CP Victory (1918-19) world. As in a decisive attempt by the British to crush the IRA, followed by a bloody and extended terrorist campaign, which would end up involving terror attacks on civilian populations in Britain.

The General Strike could take on much more republican overtones, and lead to the government, already dealing with the Irish ulcer, to deeply overreact. Perhaps machine gun some people. Then it gets bad.
 
Top