The Twin Eagles and the Lion

[LordKalvan]

Don, it makes sense, with the following remarks:

• it does not make a lot of sense for the Russian to annex Persia outright. It's much more sensible to keep a Khajari shah under their thumb - via a resident at the Shah court as well as the famous Cossack Brigade. The Abadan area is a bit of a question mark: I think that the Germans will like to keep it in their sphere (oil). It might be governed from Baghdad (Iraq - which you did not mention - might be either a direct colony or even better a German protectorate. Same German protectorate status might be extended to Kuwait, the Trucial States, Bahrein and Qatar. However, i would suggest that Mosul area is awarded to italy, and joined to southern Anatolia).
• Syria might again be a german protectorate, rather than a colony.
• Lebanon (possibly limited to the Christian portion of the region - with or without Beirout) might become an Italian protectorate.
• Palestine would be a triple co-dominium (GRI), so that each major Christian denomination would have control over the Holy Places
• Arabia (including Trans-Jordan) would certainly be a protectorate (joint italo-german?), but formally independent so as to avoid any trouble with Maccah
• I would love if the Boer republics were reinstated in South Africa (independent with german guarantee)
• Indochina: I would favour a horizontal split (Cambodia and South Vietnam to Germany; Laos and North Vietnam to Italy, since it quite close to Hainan)
  
  
  
  
  
  

There might be some Spanish colonies up for grabs, if Spain is on the loosing side; in particular Philippines and Guam (I cannot believe the USA expanding the conflict to Far East ITTL).
Hungary should be independent, and probably should get out almost unscathed (certainly keeping Transilvania - Romania is on the loosing side too ITTL). My doubts are if allowing an Habsburg king, and what to do of Croatia (my take would be YES for the former, and a puppet kingdom for the second); puppet Serbia (looses Kossovo, but shares Bosnia with Croatia); independent (and puppet) Montenegro; Bulgaria grabs all of Macedonia as well as west Thrace (what to do with Thessalonika depends on where Greece was in the war).

 

[Don Draper]

I agree with this though. I really do believe that Britain and America coming to blows, near short of a TRULY EPIC blunder and one without an apology, is nearing the edge of plausibility.

I really think that despite blunders. It would be British policy to woo America, not ignore her or sink her ships. Definetly not sink her ships, since because of not using Subs, the British wouldn't suffer the fate of not knowing who they're attacking.

In order to get Britain to really piss of America, you'd have to have an order given to the ships to sink American ones. That would never happen. Britain also wouldn't sieze American ships. They would try and deter them, and submarine warfare would also play its course.

My opinion exactly.

 

[Don Draper]

Don, it makes sense, with the following remarks:

• it does not make a lot of sense for the Russian to annex Persia outright. It's much more sensible to keep a Khajari shah under their thumb - via a resident at the Shah court as well as the famous Cossack Brigade. The Abadan area is a bit of a question mark: I think that the Germans will like to keep it in their sphere (oil). It might be governed from Baghdad (Iraq - which you did not mention - might be either a direct colony or even better a German protectorate. Same German protectorate status might be extended to Kuwait, the Trucial States, Bahrein and Qatar. However, i would suggest that Mosul area is awarded to italy, and joined to southern Anatolia).
• Syria might again be a german protectorate, rather than a colony.
• Lebanon (possibly limited to the Christian portion of the region - with or without Beirout) might become an Italian protectorate.
• Palestine would be a triple co-dominium (GRI), so that each major Christian denomination would have control over the Holy Places
• Arabia (including Trans-Jordan) would certainly be a protectorate (joint italo-german?), but formally independent so as to avoid any trouble with Maccah
• I would love if the Boer republics were reinstated in South Africa (independent with german guarantee)
• Indochina: I would favour a horizontal split (Cambodia and South Vietnam to Germany; Laos and North Vietnam to Italy, since it quite close to Hainan)

There might be some Spanish colonies up for grabs, if Spain is on the loosing side; in particular Philippines and Guam (I cannot believe the USA expanding the conflict to Far East ITTL).
Hungary should be independent, and probably should get out almost unscathed (certainly keeping Transilvania - Romania is on the loosing side too ITTL). My doubts are if allowing an Habsburg king, and what to do of Croatia (my take would be YES for the former, and a puppet kingdom for the second); puppet Serbia (looses Kossovo, but shares Bosnia with Croatia); independent (and puppet) Montenegro; Bulgaria grabs all of Macedonia as well as west Thrace (what to do with Thessalonika depends on where Greece was in the war).

For Persia: Could we see a version of the Anglo-Russian agreement of OTL between the Russians and the Germans, with Russia taking the north in her sphere of influence and the Germans the south?

- Iraq/Kuwait: I believe I mentioned them, yes they will be a German protectorate.

- The Trucial States also go to Germany, forgot to mention them.

- Alright, let's make Syria a protectorate then.

- For now I'm going to keep Lebanon German.

- Good idea about the co-domination of the Holy Land. However, this could just be limited to declaring Jerusalem " an international city."

- Trans-Jordan could be part of the same co-dominion, or if Jerusalem alone is co-dominated either it or Lebanon is Italian, so that the Italians aren't shut out of the Levant(though they do have Southern Anatolia)

- The Brits may keep Southern Rhodesia, but the North(Zambia) is going German.

-Your idea for the partition of Indochina is a good one.

 

[NCW]

Canada wouldn't negotiate for this right away. They would declare neutrality, and then the horse wrangling starts from there.

Well Canada already has a constitution. The British North America Acts are still apart of Canadian constitution today.

So what you'd see instead is a essentialy a large amount of amendments to the constitution.

Yes, the three tier system would be correct. The Canadian authority is equivalent to the US senate and congress, since with the sharing of powers, their seperate roles are equivalent.

The Confederation would have some very narrow, clear cut roles for the North American Government. International trade, foreign affairs, and the Military essentialy.

The President would also find himself confined to certain roles within Canada being limited to the North American role. Declarations of war would go to congress (where the Canadian members are sitting) and all other things. Other than that, he'd get sent whatever Canadian legislation Parliament passes and be expected to sign. He wouldn't really be allowed to vetoe Canadian legislation unless it is deigned unconstitutional, and if that was the case, it'd probably go to the courts. Since the North American authority would be almost totally foreign relations, you'd probably see a seperate Canadian court system, but heavily tied into the American one.

The sharing of powers would have to come later. The 1930's are much too soon to be giving any ground to Washington, since the war is still fresh and all Canadian powers would be jealousy guarded.

Also the problem with OTL's New Deal was that it was suggested in Canada and deemed unconstitutional OTL. It infringed on provincial power.

With the disparity between the American and Canadian population, you'd probably see seperate but spontaneous elections for Congress/Senate and Parliament. A Congressman would be elected from an area that elects a number of MP's.
The one big shift in Canadian parliamentary politics you'd probably see is the introduction of standardised elections to coincide with American ones.
Ditto goes for the Canadian senate, since at its absolute maximum, the Canadian portion of the Senate would be 14 members. So Canadians would elect five people, a Canadian and a North American senator, an MP, a Congressman, and a President.

The Provinces would still be called that because they have different rights than the states.

Again, the Canadian Prime Minister, since Premier would again be an insult. The head of provinces are called premiers, and as I explained above, that definition would be kept to differentiate from a state, since there is a difference.

It would be interesting to see the knock-on affects of this on American politics. If the Canadian Provinces have more rights that US States then maybe some States might try to gain similar powers. Since amendments to the US constitution are necessary to get this to work, the states would have the opportunity to influence the amendments to give themselves more rights. At the very least, we might see Alaska try to be admitted to the North American Union as a Canadian Province.

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[DuQuense]

If Canada withdraws from the war, and the Continental war is going bad, I see Britain asking for a separate peace.
As such all this loss of territory probably doesn't happen, I am already leary of the conference of Berlin coming up with the exact same German SPacific as OTL.
But with Canada getting out as seperate, I see Anzac being more assertive, re the Pacific changes. I see Anzac as still having occupied German Guinea. And Anzac not giving them back.
[?Did this TL's NZ remain independent or did it join Australia? ]

 

[Nicomacheus]

I will say this and then nothing further on the Canada question: if US policy with regard to acquiring "legal hegemony / insurmountable influence" over Canada is self-consciously trying to eclipse Canadian nationalism and consummate an eventual annexation, then the Canadian response is bound to begin and be founded forever in resisting such an eventuality. On the other hand, to get the Canadians on-board with being annexed, IMHO, you'd have to get them to voluntarily agree to the concept. DJ's scheme does this quite well.

 

[Don Draper]

New Zealand with Australia would definitely be a fun butterfly.

Duquesne, what would you think the Brits would lose in the peace? I'm curious.

 

[Onkel Willie]

As such all this loss of territory probably doesn't happen,

The Germans probably want those and are in a position to get away with it.

 

[Jord839]

I rather like the idea propsed by jenkins, but I do have a bone to pick about it. That agreement would seem to many americans as blatant favoritism towards a group that's refusing to assimilate with the rest of the country and would face a lot of opposition in the states. I would say that there must be something as a sort of "penalty" or a promise for greater rights or something should the Canadians become normal states. Otherwise, it would be seen very badly that a "non-American" territory is being given more rights and powers than the actual states themselves, which it seems, to me, that is what is being proposed.

There needs to be both some powerful limit on the Canadian's power, and an incentive to appease the Canadians. Otherwise this is just not going to happen.

 

[dreadnought jenkins]

I rather like the idea propsed by jenkins, but I do have a bone to pick about it. That agreement would seem to many americans as blatant favoritism towards a group that's refusing to assimilate with the rest of the country and would face a lot of opposition in the states. I would say that there must be something as a sort of "penalty" or a promise for greater rights or something should the Canadians become normal states. Otherwise, it would be seen very badly that a "non-American" territory is being given more rights and powers than the actual states themselves, which it seems, to me, that is what is being proposed.

There needs to be both some powerful limit on the Canadian's power, and an incentive to appease the Canadians. Otherwise this is just not going to happen.

The Canadian provinces aren't gaining anything. The idea is that America is essentialy gaining suzerainty over the Dominion of Canada. Canada has switched Great Britain for America, and with the far closer proximity, this deal is altered somewhat but the essential part is the same; Canada is still autonomous in regards to her internal affairs. She wouldn't accept American interference in it.

Unlike in her foreign relations at the period under Great Britain, in which Canada had a role but was supervised, this deal Canada gives up any form of any seperate foreign relations. Her relations are now those of the states, and nothing more. There is no Canadian attache, just the American ambassador.

The Americans might argue for more latitude for the American president to vetoe Canadian legislation, but I really see that being the extent of it.

Canada, due to its autonomous nature and Quebec (French civil law) would also have to have its own court system. What you might see as a compromise is that the Canadian privy council would send its Supreme Court appointees to Washington, where they could be veted by the President (not Congress).

Besides, though I myself am against anything but Canadian indpependence, I think this would make American politics more fun.

 

[The Sandman]

Actually, I think Japan is more likely to join the CP than the Entente in TTL WWI. It's really a matter of what's more valuable to all sides; I can see the Russians ultimately selling all of Sakhalin to the Japanese in exchange for a sizeable chunk of money and certain agreements in Manchuria. After that point, the incentive of the Germans and Russians bringing in Japan is that in one fell swoop they eliminate the possibility of an Eastern Front for Russia and massively complicate defense plans for the Empire. The Japanese, meanwhile, are basically being offered the same deal as in OTL WWI; whatever they can grab in the Pacific, they get to keep. They also might try for the Philippines, and for Sarawak, while agreeing to hand Malaya and Indochina over to the Germans. And the Japanese would also take the British and French concessions in China; Guangzhou, Hong Kong and Hainan would be the big prizes.

Of course, this might make it trickier to bring in the delightfully racist US, but there would probably end up being some side agreements to make that palatable.

 

[Jord839]

The Canadian provinces aren't gaining anything. The idea is that America is essentialy gaining suzerainty over the Dominion of Canada. Canada has switched Great Britain for America, and with the far closer proximity, this deal is altered somewhat but the essential part is the same; Canada is still autonomous in regards to her internal affairs. She wouldn't accept American interference in it.

Unlike in her foreign relations at the period under Great Britain, in which Canada had a role but was supervised, this deal Canada gives up any form of any seperate foreign relations. Her relations are now those of the states, and nothing more. There is no Canadian attache, just the American ambassador.

The Americans might argue for more latitude for the American president to vetoe Canadian legislation, but I really see that being the extent of it.

Canada, due to its autonomous nature and Quebec (French civil law) would also have to have its own court system. What you might see as a compromise is that the Canadian privy council would send its Supreme Court appointees to Washington, where they could be veted by the President (not Congress).

Besides, though I myself am against anything but Canadian indpependence, I think this would make American politics more fun.

It still seems to me that many states would be rather annoyed with the percieved freedoms of the Canadians in regards to state's/province's rights, which would lead to problems down the road. That's why I thought there would be some serious limit in there somewhere, probably in regard to military and economic things in addition to the sovereignity thing. For example, if the New Deal is necessary ITTL then I would think it would automatically be pushed onto the Canadians, regardless of provincial objections. Also, the FBI and other pan-national agencies would have to have jurisdiction over Canada, not just an advisory role, though the mounties would probably be transformed into the local branches. Anything less and it doesn't make much sense for the US to claim sovereignity.

I understand your wish to keep Canada independent, but (and this could just be my american-biased opinion) your solution seems unrealistically in favor of Canada for the time. Canada would obviously get a lot of its own power if it negotiated for this, but I still think there would be some major differences to your plan. The arrangement you laid out seems to elevate Canada to a status that American states would greatly resent, as it is immune to many federal laws and has a (many would say far too) long list of regional freedoms. This would lead to either normal american states pushing for similar rights or constant attempts to take away those powers from Canada. Neither of which would be very good for long term stability. If such a treaty was accepted, it would be regarded as an extremely temporary measure with the debates about it being similar to the ones on Northern Ireland.(Which, come to think of it, would make things very interesting as in WW2 we could then have a Canadian Republican Army fighting for independence or an American Union Army fighting to fully unite NA)

That said, even if Canada is absorbed by the US, Candian identity is not going to die. Hell, Texan and Confederate identities haven't even fully died, and they existed for a much smaller time. You'll still see the Maple Leaf Flag flying in the north, just like its pretty easy to find the Confederate flag flying at the same height as the Union flag, although the Canadian one would probably be even more common.

And why would you want US politics any more "fun"? Aren't we complicated enough as it is? What are you trying to do, turn us into f*****g HREGN?

 

[DuQuense]

DuQuense, what would you think the Brits would lose in the peace? I'm curious.

I find the US /British war a little ASB my self , but it appears as Canon
So.
If the US got Canada I can't see the US wanting a lot more --Maybe Bahamas/Bermuda -- Maybe.

Italy will want Malta, -- they have been after it since Britain stole in during the Napoleonic Wars.
Italy will probably also get British and French Somalia. And will probably ask for Aden.
OTL in the early 1900's the Somalia/Kenya Border was ill defined and post WW1 Italy got a big Hunk of what was Kenya. ITTL I see Italy getting even more but not all of it.
?Did Italy get Libya ITTL? if so Italy may want south Sudan to connect IEA and Libya, This would actually be good for Christian Sudan.

?What side was Greece on? I could see Britain giving Cyprus to Greece - Just to make sure it doesn't go to the Alliance.

I see German getting Britain's West Africa, giving German control from the Liberian border to the Angolan Border.
I also see Germany getting Britain's Shantung Concession.
However most of Britain's Mid east is not legally Britain's to give away, in that Britain's controls was based on Treaties with Nominally independent Politicities.

?Was there a Russian/Japanese War? OTL the RJ was fought almost completely in Chinese Manchuria, over control of Manchuria.
If Russia Won, I can see a More Maritime Japan, more willing to go after German Pacificia.

?What happened to the Philippines during TTL's Spanish/French-American? OTL Dewey was setting in Hong Kong waiting for the war to start. I don't see TTL's Spain selling anything to Germany.

Whe need some updates advancing the Timeline, or more info about how the Pacific war will shape up.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

i love how much interest is in this TL and it's only had one update lol but then again im addicted as well

 

[Don Draper]

Yeah, I think Italy does get Libya.

I hope the US/Brit war doesn't get added as it seems far-fetched to me too.

Remember, France will almost surely lose all colonies to the Italo-Germans, including Algeria. They also lose Nice/Savoy to Italy and the rest of Lorraine to Germany.

At first when Zod and I discussed France's fate in the original discussion thread we agreed it would certainly go fascist, then Zod decided to have Boulanger take power in 1888/9 and restore the Legitimists, basically have them go quasi-fascist going into the war.

We also discussed the strong possibility of a Second Commune/ Communist uprising, which we could see strengthened by the fact that France's humilation was brought about by a fascistic government. However, I don't think the Germans would tolerate a Communist France very long.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

How would Britian react to having Canada just up and bolt into the arms of the US in order to avoid being torn apart? Would they wan't to punish Canada? How would it look from a global point of view if they lost Canada wouldn't they lose alot of face?

This is the whole point, and this is wwhere the whole war with Britain in the first place between the USA and the UK gets borderline ASB and definitely in the slimist of plausibility areas. While Foreign policy was generally directed by Britain, Canada was allowed its own relations with Washington even pre-WWI. This in itself means the Canadians will be running interference, Canada was in the British political arena but was already at this point moving into the American Economic Sphere and sliding steadily into its political influence as well in all but name. It was always a prime political consideration of Ottawa to make sure that the UK-US relationship remained positive, and if strains developed that they work to ameliorate it. Canada is not going to support Britain in any policy move that will endanger the the North American relationship or the trans-Atlantic one at this point in time. GZ and OW, I think you are trying to project a desired outcome and casting a political culture in the US that simply did not exist at this time in the US, Britain or Canada. All three are well aware of the benefits both politicaly and economically of the Trans Atlantic relationship.

You bring up the Guyana and Venezuela conflicts repeatedly but the point is War did not occur and that is a testament to how strong that trans-Atlantic relationship was.. Yes they strained and the Americans were irritated but the ties did not break. In stead it birthed the Roosevelt Co-orollorary to the Monroe Doctrine. Basically that if the Americans didn't want the anyone in its backyard when problems arose, they would have to take a more active role there themselves. its this that brought the first stirrings of a move away from isolationism and that at least in the Americas the US had to be more pro-active.

As to the British blundering into a situation late war that brings this on...perhaps. it depends on what it is. If its policy related such as tightening the blockade to the point that the US cannot tolerate. The Canadian delegations in London will oppose it. They have a lot of cards to play. They are integral to the British war effort after all for men and material. That and the pro-US lobby in Westminster will put the kybosh on any initiative that might threaten the trans-Atlantic relationship. Even an accident by the British would have larger hurdles to jump than that of the Germans.

As to the choice between annexation or free-trade the choice is clear the Americans unlike the Brits in Ireland have no history of controlling Canada. They have no desire in the political culture of the turn of the century to annex Canada any more when the same result can be achieved without firing a shot. Americans are very pragmatic in that respect when it comes to the bottom line politically and economically.

Occupation along the lines of what you suggest would result in a Northern Ireland type situation writ large. Your dismissal and portrayal of Canadian Nationalism and the Canadian identity and the way you stated it is insulting in the extreme. You need to retract that statement if you haven't already.

If not, Ian, I respectfully ask that he be booted if he does not.. this is akin to making similiar denigrating remarks regarding the French or the Italians which I shall not name at this point but we all know what these are.

Aside from that...your POD is better now and actually works much better. The development in A-H though is still suspect.

The Galicien Poles and Czechs of OTL both supported the hapsburgs in Vienna in OTL until it was clear the A-H was going to fall apart because the alternative was worse. The Poles in Galicia had the greatest liberties relative to their Russian and German controlled cousins. Your Tl has not changed that. So if anything the Poles, if they are entertaining any independence ideas are probably entertaining them under Austrian or Habsburg auspices. the Czechs, while alienated to some extent by the Emperors favouritism of the German population in Austria still see the alternative as worse in this TL so they will continue to support him here as well. The strategic situation is such that now that A-H does not have the Big brother GE looking over its shoulder, Vienna really has to deal with its nationalities problem sooner rather than later, to forge a more cohesive unit in the face of its three evils. I think you would see the forging of a triple if not quadruple monarchy forged well before the outbreak of hostilities. The biggest grumblers will be the Hungarians, but really do they think the Russians are going to let them lord it over their Slovak/Serb or Croatian distant relations..ah no...there pragmatic as well....reform within the Empire is their best course as well otherwise they risk something even less palatable being served to them by the Russian and German colossus, preying on nationalistic divisions within the Empire.

 

[LordKalvan]

Yeah, I think Italy does get Libya.

I hope the US/Brit war doesn't get added as it seems far-fetched to me too.

Remember, France will almost surely lose all colonies to the Italo-Germans, including Algeria. They also lose Nice/Savoy to Italy and the rest of Lorraine to Germany.

At first when Zod and I discussed France's fate in the original discussion thread we agreed it would certainly go fascist, then Zod decided to have Boulanger take power in 1888/9 and restore the Legitimists, basically have them go quasi-fascist going into the war.

We also discussed the strong possibility of a Second Commune/ Communist uprising, which we could see strengthened by the fact that France's humilation was brought about by a fascistic government. However, I don't think the Germans would tolerate a Communist France very long.

Besides the French colonies there are the Spanish ones (including Philippines, since I do not believe that USA will make any move in the Far East) and most likely the Japanese ones (Korea, Formosa, concessions in China).

Italy will certainly get Lybia, which was promised at the Congress of Berlin in both OTL and TTL (certainly earlier than IOTL and probably through negotiations with OE: ITTL Italy has a much better status and self confidence, so they do not need a "short, victorious war).

As I said in another post, I do foresee Italy as co-belligerant with UK in Sudan in the war against the mahdi (circa 1895-1896), and this intervention should result in an Italo-British joint protectorate on Sudan (as well as a land connection between Lybia and AOI).

If Italy feels perky, there is also a good opportunity during the Cretan crisis, which should come along as per OTL (1897-98): maybe a sort of informal protectorate on Crete, and a naval base in Chania.

 

[LordKalvan]

Aside from that...your POD is better now and actually works much better. The development in A-H though is still suspect.

The Galicien Poles and Czechs of OTL both supported the hapsburgs in Vienna in OTL until it was clear the A-H was going to fall apart because the alternative was worse. The Poles in Galicia had the greatest liberties relative to their Russian and German controlled cousins. Your Tl has not changed that. So if anything the Poles, if they are entertaining any independence ideas are probably entertaining them under Austrian or Habsburg auspices. the Czechs, while alienated to some extent by the Emperors favouritism of the German population in Austria still see the alternative as worse in this TL so they will continue to support him here as well. The strategic situation is such that now that A-H does not have the Big brother GE looking over its shoulder, Vienna really has to deal with its nationalities problem sooner rather than later, to forge a more cohesive unit in the face of its three evils. I think you would see the forging of a triple if not quadruple monarchy forged well before the outbreak of hostilities. The biggest grumblers will be the Hungarians, but really do they think the Russians are going to let them lord it over their Slovak/Serb or Croatian distant relations..ah no...there pragmatic as well....reform within the Empire is their best course as well otherwise they risk something even less palatable being served to them by the Russian and German colossus, preying on nationalistic divisions within the Empire.

A-H was a relic of the past and should have gone the wat of the HRE at the Congress of Vienna: a pluri-national empire smack in the centre of Europe did not make any sense in the 19th century. For the next 30 years Metternich and the generals managed to keep their boot on the neck of a lot of restive nationalities, then 1848 came: first good opportunity to clean the board, lost for a series of unfortunate circumstances as well as lack of common sense on the side of the insurgents. Another good opportunity came in 1866, but no luck. I truly cannot believe they survived up to WW1: besides the Austrians, the only ones to love the habsburgs were the Croats (and that because no one liked them ). "Pragmatic reform" is not possible: if one changes anything in the empire, it will burst at the seams.

 

[Onkel Willie]

i love how much interest is in this TL and it's only had one update lol but then again im addicted as well

If you really want an update you should look to General Zod. I sent him three chapters for revision on tuesday. I haven't received an answer yet.

 

[Nugax]

So here's my idea the final list of gains for the Triple Alliance:

Russia:

Persia(north directly, south through protectorate)
Northern Anatolia
De facto protectorate over the Straits/Constantinople
Afghanistan
Manchuria
Korea(through protectorate)
Xinjiang
Galicia
Bukovina
Ruthenia
Slovakia

Italy:
French Equatorial Africa
Tunisia
Eastern Algeria
Southern Anatolia
Kenya
Cyprus
South Tyrol
Austrian Littoral
Trento
Dalmatia
Albania
Yemen
Gibraltar
Malta
Sudan
British Somaliland
Nice
Savoy
Hainan
Most of the French Pacific Islands

Germany:
Austria proper
Bohemia
Slovenia
Luxembourg
French West Africa
Morocco
Nigeria
(Belgian Congo, but they already had this before this WWI)
Rhodesia
Uganda
French Congo
Gabon
Lorraine
Acknowledgement by Brits that Netherlands is in German sphere of influence
Syria/Lebanon
Iraq/Kuwait
Palestine/Transjordan
Oman
Madagascar
Either All of Indochina or partition with Italy(how would this work? North/South, East/West?)
Formosa
A couple of the French Pacific Islands, but most go to Italy.

This is a truly heroic amount of stuff, easily ten times what the Entente took in OTL WWI, and Germany and Italy have far smaller colonial services and a less than optimal navies for the task. They'll be facing massive overstreach for at least two decades and huge amount of money wasted.

A-H was a relic of the past and should have gone the wat of the HRE at the Congress of Vienna: a pluri-national empire smack in the centre of Europe did not make any sense in the 19th century. For the next 30 years Metternich and the generals managed to keep their boot on the neck of a lot of restive nationalities, then 1848 came: first good opportunity to clean the board, lost for a series of unfortunate circumstances as well as lack of common sense on the side of the insurgents. Another good opportunity came in 1866, but no luck. I truly cannot believe they survived up to WW1: besides the Austrians, the only ones to love the habsburgs were the Croats (and that because no one liked them ). "Pragmatic reform" is not possible: if one changes anything in the empire, it will burst at the seams.

The fact that AH was a creaky mess that no one inside it liked is irrelevent - as long as the Empire had at least a vague military crediability it was a better deal than the alternative for all its politically minorities. The situation had changed since 1848 with the rise of Germany and strengthening of Russia, for the Czechs it was AH or being swallowed up in/powerless vassal of Germany, for the Galicians it was AH or being utterly screwed in Russian Poland, for the Hungarians it was AH or having to give up dominating the minor Slavic populations and being a German/Russian plaything to boot, for the Croats it was AH or being hated by everyone...

Also how exactly is 'Propaganda that AH is doomed to fail' going to work anyway? Surely that'd be rather insulting to the elite and hard to convey to the lower classes, especially with French aid leading to improvements. Their conditions getting better will be enough to sway most people - who won't be able to tour europe and see that things aren't improving enough, it'll be like the majority of China today - as long as the Party delievers some consistant improvement why rock the boat?