The value of a Central Powers victory?

Because such domination would be milder. I'm of the opinion that it is better to have large numbers of semi-powerful states than a hegemon with a string of client states.
For you the greater suffering IOTL is preferable because Poland was the one given reign over Eastern Central Europe and an artificial dominance over Germany as France's Eastern enforcer.
Huh? I think you're operating under false assumptions.
 
Even without Hitler Germany was getting a dictator by 1932-33 who was going to be revanchist. The question is when the war is coming and whether it would be the Nazis that start it. The German dictator might not be anti-Communist though (von Schleicher). Still with OTL peace what is to stop Stalin from coming to power and murdering tens of millions of Russians and subject peoples?

Assuming that a German war of revenge is inevitable (IMO it's not improbable, but can be avoided):
1. It may be locallized, and thus avoid killing tens of millions of people.
2. The baltics, half of Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria may avoid decades of communist rule.

Also, Communists may come to power in Russia in a CP victory as well as in an Entente victory.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Assuming that a German war of revenge is inevitable (IMO it's not improbable, but can be avoided):.
Something will have to be done about the Versailles treaty and Germany will have to be expanded to prevent a war. I think it can be done without war too, but Poland will have to cut a deal..will it?

1. It may be locallized, and thus avoid killing tens of millions of people.
How will it if Germany get violent over Poland? France and Britain cannot back down over that.

2. The baltics, half of Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria may avoid decades of communist rule.
True.

Also, Communists may come to power in Russia in a CP victory as well as in an Entente victory.
True, but with anti-communist Allies and CPs wanting it gone, its far less likely to survive long.
 
Something will have to be done about the Versailles treaty and Germany will have to be expanded to prevent a war. I think it can be done without war too, but Poland will have to cut a deal..will it?

How will it if Germany get violent over Poland? France and Britain cannot back down over that.

I suppose Britain-France may back down, after all they did over the Sudetenland. If they don’t, a sane German leadership may respond by moderating its demands to a level they’ll find acceptable. If things go well a tolerable compromise may be reached.

True, but with anti-communist Allies and CPs wanting it gone, its far less likely to survive long.

If the CPs decide that communists cannot run a country properly and that everybody else hates them, making a red Russia less of a threat, I don’t see why they should really mind.
 
I think the main value of a CP win is that the postwar peace will be in the charge of a country with the power to enforce it. IOTL the postwar peace basically fell apart; the US withdrew into isolationism, Russia fell into revolution and civil war, France was too weak but vindictive and Britain was not very keen to do the job or powerful enough.

If the CP won by 1917, before the politics became too revolutionary, the peace of the next decade or 2 would be enforced by Germany and friends. Now this mightn't be to your taste, but it would be better than squabbling small powers causing trouble all the time.
 
I don't think any peace involves Germany keeping her colonies, period. Well, the British ones, at least. There's simply no way for them to enforce such a demand.


And it might be difficult for Britain to secure their return even if willing to, as she doesn't control them.

The Pacific ones were held by Australia, NZ and Japan, Kamerun by the French, while not only SWA but German East Africa as well were occupied by South Africa. Iirc the only German possession under direct British rule was Togoland.

In any case, I suspect this would be the least of Britain's concerns. The loss of the war will be a terrific blow to her prestige, and a corresponding fillip to the nationalist movement in India. The principal concern of Britain's new (Labour?) government is apt to be less about acquiring Togoland or Iraq, and much more about whether the Indian Empire is still tenable.
 
And it might be difficult for Britain to secure their return even if willing to, as she doesn't control them.

The Pacific ones were held by Australia, NZ and Japan, Kamerun by the French, while not only SWA but German East Africa as well were occupied by South Africa. Iirc the only German possession under direct British rule was Togoland.

In any case, I suspect this would be the least of Britain's concerns. The loss of the war will be a terrific blow to her prestige, and a corresponding fillip to the nationalist movement in India. The principal concern of Britain's new (Labour?) government is apt to be less about acquiring Togoland or Iraq, and much more about whether the Indian Empire is still tenable.

As France held Kamerun, I imagine Germany could get it back if they liked. Japan, likewise, is definitely going to hold onto their new conquests. But, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't territory occupied by British dominions be basically the same as being occupied by Britain? If Britain needs it, I imagine she could lean on them to give up these territories.

Having said that, it might IMO actually be to Britain's benefit to keep the colonies. If they also manage to secure Belgium's independence, through some other tradeoffs, they can put a good face on it "We saved Belgium and got some colonies in the bargain!"
 
But, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't territory occupied by British dominions be basically the same as being occupied by Britain? If Britain needs it, I imagine she could lean on them to give up these territories.


She could beg them to, but they would be very reluctant, and might well get stubborn about it. Participation in the war seems to have boosted nationalism there.

It's not impossible but it might require concessions in other areas, eg South Africa might pull out of German East, and even SWA (though that would be harder) if offered Bechuanaland and Southern Rhodesia in lieu. Keep in mind that a Britain which has just lost a major war probably needs the Dominions more than they need her.

That said, in the case of SWA, it might pay Germany to let South Africa keep it. If the rights of the local German population are guaranteed, they will ally politically with the Boers, and with a lost war having discredited the British connection, it may not be too long before SA has a pro-German government.
 
Last edited:
She could beg them to, but they would be very reluctant, and might well get stubborn about it. Participation in the war seems to have boosted nationalism there.

It's not impossible but it might require concessions in other areas, eg South Africa might pull out of German East, and even SWA (though that would be harder) if offered Bechuanaland and Southern Rhodesia in lieu. Keep in mind that a Britain which has just lost major war rprobably needs the Dominions more than they need her.

That said, in the case of SWA, it might pay Germany to let South Africa keep it. If the rights of the local German population are guaranteed, they will ally politically with the Boers, and with a lost war having discredited the British connection, it may not be too long before SA has a pro-German government.

Now that I think about it, is it possible for Japan and the Pacific dominions to get into conflict over Germany's former Pacific colonies? IIRC, the occupations were joint, and nobody else who cares about the result of those colonies is in any position to enforce their wishes.
 
Top