WI The Central Powers won the First World War?
- Thread starter PhoenicianLegacy
- Start date
Winning in the classical British way of aquiring more overseas possesions and improving the securiy of her sea borne trade. Sure its not as big of victory as OTL WW1, but compared to 1914 there is no longer any threat of German overseas bases, Palestine and the entire red sea area is occupied so there is less threat to the Suez canal. Southern Iraq is occupied so there is less threat to Persian Guf Oil. The Germans are going to be preoccuped running their new eastern client states which is all very expensive so will accept a naval agreement readily.
Ulimately any WW1 peace settlement has to keep the British reasonably happy which means the British aren't going to deal with future possible submarine bases in Africa or sitting across the channel or with a Germany that would continue to agressively build ships. If the British are happy with their security arrangements and victory seems risky or a long way off I can see the British settling in this way.
Ulimately any WW1 peace settlement has to keep the British reasonably happy which means the British aren't going to deal with future possible submarine bases in Africa or sitting across the channel or with a Germany that would continue to agressively build ships. If the British are happy with their security arrangements and victory seems risky or a long way off I can see the British settling in this way.
Personally, I often find "Central Powers Wins" scenarios too cheery to be credible.
In the best case scenario, an exhausted Germany simply enforces a fairly mild peace, perhaps one with no annexations.
However, in any scenario where a victorious Germany annexes vast swathes of Poland, Belgium, and Northern France, the likely end point isn't going to be some super-proto-EU that lives happily ever after. The most likely outcomes are going to be years of more war, similar to what was going on in East Asia with Japanese expansionism or the Napoleonic Wars. Most of the subjugated societies aren't going to simply accept German dominance or puppet status. And a Britain which has long aimed to prevent the domination of the continent by a single power, is going to remain locked in a Cold War with the new German Empire, as is likely the U.S.
Under these conditions, it seems fairly plausible that rebellions and uprisings threaten Germany's war gains, prompt new military responses, and open the door to another war.
I suppose such an outcome is better than OTL if it avoids Hitler and the Holocaust. But I would argue that the Entente victory and even Versailles did nothing to make Hitler and the Nazis inevitable either.
In the best case scenario, an exhausted Germany simply enforces a fairly mild peace, perhaps one with no annexations.
However, in any scenario where a victorious Germany annexes vast swathes of Poland, Belgium, and Northern France, the likely end point isn't going to be some super-proto-EU that lives happily ever after. The most likely outcomes are going to be years of more war, similar to what was going on in East Asia with Japanese expansionism or the Napoleonic Wars. Most of the subjugated societies aren't going to simply accept German dominance or puppet status. And a Britain which has long aimed to prevent the domination of the continent by a single power, is going to remain locked in a Cold War with the new German Empire, as is likely the U.S.
Under these conditions, it seems fairly plausible that rebellions and uprisings threaten Germany's war gains, prompt new military responses, and open the door to another war.
I suppose such an outcome is better than OTL if it avoids Hitler and the Holocaust. But I would argue that the Entente victory and even Versailles did nothing to make Hitler and the Nazis inevitable either.
The question is how big of a peace time army does Germany need to exploit these gains in the east to the level she wants and can she afford that.
If her goal is just to annex a bit of lets say: Courland, the islands of Dago and Osel and the rest (Ukraine, Finland, Estonia, etc.) really are left as weak but mostly independent states that create a buffer between her and Russia and are tied to Germany's leadership out of concern for Russia, Germany might be able to do that for a long while.
But if the goal is to economically exploit these states in major way, install puppets as governments, and keep pushing in the Caucasus and maybe even in the Asian "stan" regions of Russia, Germany won't be able to afford that for long.
Since this still likely a military dominated Germany the second option does seem more likely.
The USSR did pretty much the same for many decades. Germany can surely cause similar misery over a similar time period if it wants to. The economic profits from its colonies (and the desire to prevent them from drifting over to the Russo-British camp) could surely provide the incentive to keep going for a long time.
The Soviets had a population of over 200 million. The non-Russian societies it was ruling over were generally tribalistic or lacked a clear national identity. Where the Soviets were puppetizing other European societies, they failed numerous revolts and the collapse that happened would have come far sooner had it not been for the West's (justifiable) desire to avoid a nuclear war. None of those conditions will be true for a Greater German Empire.
The Bourbons, the Habsburgs, and Bonapartes were all hegemons of Europe. Yet Britain bet them all. Whose not to say Germany too. With Britain's island and an empire abroad they will always be immensely powerful.
Not counting that at least the Soviet had a proper ideology behind they conquest, something that they can spread, something that at least in some sense will justify it even in the eyes of the world and the population of the 'puppetized' nations.
Post WWI Germany? None of the above and as said earlier unlike the Soviet post war they will have their internal political problem (not counting that mess that is now the A-H empire...a wholly owed subsidiary of the German Empire)
I meant the short term. Britain bleeds itself out, expends a fortune and fails to achieve its main objective of preventing the emergence of a hegemon, in return for relatively unsubstantial annexations. I have some difficulty in calling this a victory.
I quite agree that Germany would find maintaining its Mitteleuropa quite difficult (exactly how troublesome would depend on its size), and losing control sooner rather then later would be a likely outcome, more so then with the OTL USSR and its own satellites. But I still doubt that German maintainance of control would be very implausible either.
Despite the revolts the USSR only lost its sphere of influence in Europe on its deathbed. And if Germany muddles through to the 1940s, it can have nukes too. But yes, the ratio of more-or-less-Russian-Soviets to non-Soviets in OTL was higher then TTL's ratio of Germans to their Mitteleuropean subjects, which counts for a lot.
I understand what you mean, but still chuckled at the adjective.
Despite being near-universally reviled, communism definitely brought one big advantage: it promoted the idea of wrecking the existing societies and turning them upside down. TTL's Germans might rule with a heavy hand, but it seems to me that they would be much less likely to destroy the existing upper classes (a job made easier in OTL because Germany had often done a fair share of the work before the Soviets even arrived) and replace them with fabricated ones which would owe everything to it and thus be more loyal.
PhoenicianLegacy
Banned
I agree with Slideaway that Germany would annex Belgium. Also, I heard sources stating that a Central Victory would've made a difference in the outcome of the Russian civil war.
It's honestly extremely unlikely; Germany wants no part in absorbing a pile of unruly minorities; except in very small doses.
It could have an effect in the Russian Civil War; mainly because the new states in the East would have a protector with the means and interest in defending them.
I'm skeptical of the whole sentiment that a CP victory automatically results in a completely impotent France. A lot can happen in the interim between the end of an ATL WWI and an analogue to WWII. Yes, the Germans will have more of a population, and yes they will have gained some industrialized territory, but that hardly translates into an effective or even competent military.
A victorious Germany will have to deal with the following:
-Hostile France and Britain, and probably the rest of Europe and even the USA simply due to being the biggest power on the continent at this point.
-massive unrest and partisan activity throughout Eastern Europe which will suck tons of manpower and resources away from Germany proper.
-considerable internal unrest as a result of the traumatic experience of the war and the (highly likely) economic turmoil of the interwar years. It is not unreasonable that by TTL's late 1930's we could see a German Empire wracked with civil war between Imperial loyalists and some sort of communist/fascist/anarchist rebel movement somewhat akin to OTL's Spanish Civil War.
-Either a very hostile Soviet Union along its eastern frontier or a precariously perched client state which is heavily dependant upon German patronage for survival
It is entirely possible that by the time the late thirties or early forties comes around, we could be seeing a heavily industrialized(though still smaller) revanchist France with possible British/American backing taking on an economic/political basket case German Empire with outdated military technology and an army that is almost exclusively geared toward anti-insurgency tactics with little to no doctrine for large scale field engagements.
Simply having more people/territory does not automatically translate to military success.
A victorious Germany will have to deal with the following:
-Hostile France and Britain, and probably the rest of Europe and even the USA simply due to being the biggest power on the continent at this point.
-massive unrest and partisan activity throughout Eastern Europe which will suck tons of manpower and resources away from Germany proper.
-considerable internal unrest as a result of the traumatic experience of the war and the (highly likely) economic turmoil of the interwar years. It is not unreasonable that by TTL's late 1930's we could see a German Empire wracked with civil war between Imperial loyalists and some sort of communist/fascist/anarchist rebel movement somewhat akin to OTL's Spanish Civil War.
-Either a very hostile Soviet Union along its eastern frontier or a precariously perched client state which is heavily dependant upon German patronage for survival
It is entirely possible that by the time the late thirties or early forties comes around, we could be seeing a heavily industrialized(though still smaller) revanchist France with possible British/American backing taking on an economic/political basket case German Empire with outdated military technology and an army that is almost exclusively geared toward anti-insurgency tactics with little to no doctrine for large scale field engagements.
Simply having more people/territory does not automatically translate to military success.
Generaloberst
Banned
Honestly, I don't see Germany gaining any colonies. In fact, I could see them losing their Asian colonies. They might get a token village from the British and French in Africa, but nothing major in the slightest.
To an extent, but not much, I think. The biggest issue is that neither the Whites nor the Reds are friendly at all with the CP, and the CP has no interests beyond securing the independence of the Brest-Litovsk states, which brings it into conflict with both Reds and Whites. It was the Reds who signed the peace treaty, of course, but that only mattered to formalize an ending to the war. If the Whites had won, the peace treaty would have of course been repudiated immediately, if the Reds, then the only reason to not repudiate the peace treaty was that it was too busy restoring order to its own house.
Now, the Entente, very much, want to see the Whites victorious. The Whites are more or less allied with the Entente, the Reds are basically hostile to everybody. It bears remembering that the Entente preferred only a crippled but intact Germany to Red Germany that an even harsher Versailles would have entailed. However, it also bears remembering that OTL, the Entente expended a deal of effort into propping up the Whites, and they still lost, due to the Reds' control of the Russian heartland and overwhelming numerical advantage. In large part, the Entente, save Japan (who is motivated more by purely self-interested gain than any larger strategic objective), simply did not, and in a CP victory, can not, commit enough resources to turn the tide.
Basically, it's unlikely that the result of the Russian Civil War would be significantly different from OTL, even in the case of a CP victory.
I find it funny how people take it as face value that Germany is going to annex "vast swathes of France, Belgium and Poland". Even the worst of the annexation plans discussed (since Germany at no point during WWI had a formally-adopted government policy on war goals) encompassed much less than what AH.com members usually consider will definately be annexed. The only things people agreed on in Germany were Luxembourg, Briey-Longwy and Beltfort.
There were plenty of conflits after WWI in Europe after the Entente victory too.
If they won WWI, that means Germany already has an effective AND competent military. Even after losing WWI IOTL, people think the German Army of WWI was both effective and competent, as it would need to be to bring the triple Entente on the brink of defeat IOTL.
Why would the USA be hostile? The alienation between the Entente and the USA was nearly total IOTL.
You will have to explain why German hegemony will cause Eastern Europe to become Germany`s Afghanistan. Last I checked, the Soviet Union ruled the discussed territory for 45 years.
You underestimate the basket case France will become after a defeat in WWI. It will have to pay reparations ITTL, and it will have to cede some territories, and to top it all off, it was by far the worst affected by the war in Western Europe.
Now, you may say "yeah, it will be bad, but Germany managed to recover, why can`t France!". Well, here`s why - the Longwy-Briey region contained over 80% of France's iron ore and was one of the six richest iron ore deposits in the world. The loss of Lorraine's iron ore would certainly cripple France's capacity to produce steel and lead to a massively reduced military-industrial potential compared to even Interbellum Germany.
If the Germans take the this region (which they planned to), France is done as a great power.
Also, why would the USA back France? I could see Britain, but they are also exhausted after WWI.
After a defeat in WWI (especially if France loses Briey-Longwy) Britain would pretty much have to shoulder all the economic and financial responsibility for French re-armament by itself.
This statement seems rather dubious.
Germany is sitting on three massive coal deposits and is the most industrialised country in Europe. Then there`s the iron resources in Alsace-Lorraine; Germany is sitting on Briey-Longwy and will get to keep it. Luxembourg has iron too. Plus Bavaria has large deposits of iron, though its ore is of low iron content, so will require more expensive processing to be useful, but could still be viable.
With Galicia still in Germany's orbit, as a victory such as this would leave Eastern Europe in Germany's pocket, would mean some 600k barrels of oil a year. Then there`s the Romanian oil fields. Beyond that Germany also has a massive economic area in Central and Eastern Europe that is a captive market for her, including all of the non-annexed areas of the former Habsburg Empire if it falls apart, potentially Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Poland, the Baltic States, and potentially Ukraine and Belarus depending on whether there has been Brest-Litovsk. The Ottomans are going to remain in Germany's economic orbit too.
The neighboring countries all around Germany that are independent, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, and the Nordic countries, are all going to be sucked into the massive market that is Germany and her vassals.
Any German Empire that survives WW1 largely intact will be the European power, and after a couple of decades it'll be the third, or more likely second, most powerful state in the world. Second only to the USA and maybe third to Russia. Europe and large portions of the world in general will be dependent on something from Germany, be it resources, technology, arms or loans.
As for the military, despite what popular culture says, no country in the world followed the trend you described. Not pre-WWI, not post-WWI and not post-WWII. Not even today, when it makes the most sense to assume large scale battles between superpowers will never happen again.
Last edited:
The OTL 1918 occupation of the east was 50 divisions or about 500,000 men (mostly 3rd rate diviions).
The 1913 peacetime strength of the German army was about 780,000 men.
So the occupation army size is within the realm of doable for a long period of time.
Certainly the morale problems that the German occupation army suffered in the east would be less if the Germans won the overall war at some level. Knowing the Germans won would make it more likely that many/most of locals would make their own personal peace with the victors and move on with their lives.
Alot would depend on how the Russian Civil war goes and what actors are out there the Germans have to deal with (what happens to the Czech legion if Austria-Hungary is still intact, what is Germany's relationship with Japan). What are the Turks up to in Central Asia?
The 1913 peacetime strength of the German army was about 780,000 men.
So the occupation army size is within the realm of doable for a long period of time.
Certainly the morale problems that the German occupation army suffered in the east would be less if the Germans won the overall war at some level. Knowing the Germans won would make it more likely that many/most of locals would make their own personal peace with the victors and move on with their lives.
Alot would depend on how the Russian Civil war goes and what actors are out there the Germans have to deal with (what happens to the Czech legion if Austria-Hungary is still intact, what is Germany's relationship with Japan). What are the Turks up to in Central Asia?
PhoenicianLegacy
Banned
Even if the Ottomans were on the verge of collapse, I do think a Central victory would've given them just a little more juice to hold on a bit longer. Once they find oil deposits on their doorstep, they'd be fully revitalized.
First of all, IMHO Germany succeeding in its belated Spring Offensive is doomed assuming that the U.S. commits troops to the Western Front; that being said, the simplest and best POD is to have the U.S. remain neutral (or, in the case of Turtledove's TL-191 Series, have the U.S. actually ally itself with Germany during WWI). Then, IMHO, an all-out German offensive across the Western Front can go ahead and most likely succeed.
No Nazis but France and Britain would undergo a period of instability, with France serving as a reference to the postwar Wiemar Republic - its either an unstable French government, a fascist coup, or a communist revolution which are all in store for a defeated France in the interwar period.
Certainly, the Ottoman Empire would've survived assuming that the Central Powers triumph during WWI. It have major problems, but would survive nonetheless.
As for Russia, well, Russia is probably the most interesting nation as far as WWI alternate histories are concerned. Will it be Soviet, republican under Kerensky, a military autocracy, Czarism, etc.?
The possibilities are literally endless for postwar Russia.
PhoenicianLegacy
Banned
Even if Russia did go Soviet, things would went differently if the victorious Germany carved out new states from its western borders as satellite states, meaning it would've been weaker.