We lose World War I

Of course, their military just burned libraries, massacred civilian towns, and the German state used forced labour. And of course they only planned to ethnicly cleanse some(2 million) Jews and Poles after the war.
If that's not a bad guy in WW1 then who is ?

Extrasolar Angel/Hurgan at work, again.

Why is it that you are never able to show the plans? I mean real plans, not some insane ramblings that nobody took serious at the time?
 
If not him then others would stand against the oppressive monarchies that treated badly so many nations. I was thinking more of a state. Was there one with more sinister goals then German Empire ?

Gavro Prilip wasn't striking against oppressive monarchies, he was striking against a rather enlightened one on behalf of a genocidal nationalist regime. You make him sound like a noble fighter for freedom and puppies. He was a brutal terrorist.
 
An early capture of Paris doesn't lead to Brest-Litovsk, B-L and Versailles were the result of political radicalisation of war aims as a result of years in indecisive and exceedingly bloody fighting. Fortunately the whole point is moot because the early capture of Paris suffers from the same disease Sealion does; logistical (and thus practical) impossibility.
 
An early capture of Paris doesn't lead to Brest-Litovsk, B-L and Versailles were the result of political radicalisation of war aims as a result of years in indecisive and exceedingly bloody fighting. Fortunately the whole point is moot because the early capture of Paris suffers from the same disease Sealion does; logistical (and thus practical) impossibility.

The Russians wanted out but the Frenchies kept them in. If the Germans capture Paris and knock France out of the war then the Russians are suing for peace and getting away with it. If I was them id give up Poland and the Baltic States just so angry German infantries wouldnt run through Moskva.

Im not saying it would be BL but it would be a treaty akin to it.
 
Mostly Id see nazism coming from France. And the next war being France+Italy vs. Germany+Britain. The AH Monarchy would fall anyway after the war.
 
How are they going to capture Paris, by Space Shuttle?

No, of course not.

Paris will be captured by Land-Dreadnoughts. They are like regular Dreadnoughts except for six huge hydraulic legs.
The Kaiserliche Marine captures Paris. Who da thunk it?
 
I'm pretty sure those are the bad guys.

I'm amused that of the group of four nations you identified as 'the bad guys', two were in fact fighting on the side of the Entente and another has very famously been neutral for centuries. I'd say this indicated pro-Central Powers sympathies, but given the fourth was Germany I'll just conclude that you should really read an introductory history textbook before posting any more World War I what-if's.
 
Well to be fair, William II was not really a good man--and I'm not too enamored of Ludendorff either.
 
Well to be fair, William II was not really a good man.

Also to be fair, he wasn't responsible for anything much. From 1914, he couldn't make the generals dance to his tune: after 1916, he was completely under Ludendorff's control. And anyway, he was a complex character, not to mention mad. I say we go easy on him.

Now, let us not be distracted by Hurgan XIV and his bizarre Hapsburgphobia: Ludendorff was a Bad Man. There has been a frenzy of exagerration from some quarters (and of course pre-revolutionary Russia got up to some Belgiumish shennanigans during the brief stay in Prussia and was pretty ghastly to the Kazakhs), but Germany in 1918 was still pretty awful, and a world in which they win late in the war would look pretty nasty. The real antagonists were human callousness and misunderstanding, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that no country was ever better than another.
 
Also to be fair, he wasn't responsible for anything much. From 1914, he couldn't make the generals dance to his tune: after 1916, he was completely under Ludendorff's control. And anyway, he was a complex character, not to mention mad. I say we go easy on him.

Now, let us not be distracted by Hurgan XIV and his bizarre Hapsburgphobia: Ludendorff was a Bad Man. There has been a frenzy of exagerration from some quarters (and of course pre-revolutionary Russia got up to some Belgiumish shennanigans during the brief stay in Prussia and was pretty ghastly to the Kazakhs), but Germany in 1918 was still pretty awful, and a world in which they win late in the war would look pretty nasty. The real antagonists were human callousness and misunderstanding, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that no country was ever better than another.
Well sure, but he definitely like to indulge in revenge more than I think prudent (i.e. the "hun" speech Re the 8-Nation Army). I agree with you about Ludendorff (as I edited amusingly!). I just finished reading the Reilly essay that argues for a relatively similar WW2 after a 1918 German victory in WW1 so I am fairly sympathetic to the your entire post especially the last: the actions of some nations could be ranked qualitatively on a moral scale.
 
Well sure, but he definitely like to indulge in revenge more than I think prudent (i.e. the "hun" speech Re the 8-Nation Army).

He wasn't a nice person, but I'm saying that he only stamped the orders created by others. To blame him for all Germany's crimes would be wrong.

I agree with you about Ludendorff (as I edited amusingly!). I just finished reading the Reilly essay that argues for a relatively similar WW2 after a 1918 German victory in WW1 so I am fairly sympathetic to the your entire post especially the last: the actions of some nations could be ranked qualitatively on a moral scale.

Indeed, although if that's the essay I'm thinking of, I consider many of its conclusions rather flawed.
 
Top