Would a quick CP Victory solve anything?

That's more-or-less what happened to France for about 20 years following the Franco-Prussian war and I don't imagine the German terms are going to be any more generous in this scenario. Whatever their performance in the field, the Serbs are going to be thrown under the bus at the peace table. Without French empowerment, the Russians will be grounded and unable to go clubbing in the Balkans.
Yeah Serbia is ratshit, but I can't help but think that if Germany defeated France in a single season the French would ask 'what if we had that heavy artillery we'd started buying in 1914, and or those 2 extra corps from Algeria?' and delude themselves that they were a whisker away from not losing in a single season (which they likely were). Similarly Russia would wonder if they implemented plan 20 and a few extra railway tracks if they'd hang on for the long fight.

Is Britain going to choose to continue to hang out with that bunch of losers, or hang out with the cool kids with their shiny uniforms and epic facial hair?
Britain will likely remain at least semi-independent, on the grounds that they only needed to Copenhagen the KM and send more divisions with the BEF.
 
After clinging to a two power naval standard during Anglo-German naval rivalry, the British gifted naval parity to the USA (among other things) following WW1, so the British were clearly capable of bending the knee. The price of German friendship would be far worse than naval parity - the British would instead need to be nice to the Kaiser.
The United States was very clearly a country the UK had nothing to worry about as they were far away from the mainland and had very little interest in the UK's (for lack of a better word) sphere. Such is not the case with a WWI-victorious Germany, which is on the brink of (or has obtained) hegemony in Europe. Preventing any one country from achieving this status had been the UK's policy towards mainland Europe for the past hundred years or so, and OTL shows they were willing to go so far as to actively work against the interests of France (their ally) at Versailles out of fear of French domination of Europe. And France didn't even have a navy remotely comparable to the RN.
 
Such a quick win would in any case lead to many millions not dying in this war compared to OTL. Most likely no Russian revolution and no holodomor.
 
Yeah Serbia is ratshit, but I can't help but think that if Germany defeated France in a single season the French would ask 'what if we had that heavy artillery we'd started buying in 1914, and or those 2 extra corps from Algeria?' and delude themselves that they were a whisker away from not losing in a single season (which they likely were). Similarly Russia would wonder if they implemented plan 20 and a few extra railway tracks if they'd hang on for the long fight.
If the French have lost the war in a single season, then they have clearly shit the bed and are scarcely going to be motivated to immediately start planning a third round. Again, based on the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war, after reparations, its going to take at least 20 years for France to drag itself off the floor.

Britain will likely remain at least semi-independent, on the grounds that they only needed to Copenhagen the KM and send more divisions with the BEF.
Maybe a British attempt to Copenhagen the KM was a POD that contributed to a single season defeat.
 

Stenz

Monthly Donor
Austria-Hungary has the most obvious future course. It is not possible for that empire to last. Princip did the Habsburgs a favor by taking a man with a morganatic marriage out of the line of succession, so that will help A-H a little. But not enough. I’m going to go so far as to say that, absent our WW1, the august Holy Catholic and Apostolic House of Habsburg meets the fate OTL reserved for the Romanovs. Complete with communist successors.
Absolute garbage.

Curiously, on a concurrent thread a number of us were perplexed why people insist A-H was doomed without war. FYI - before the war A-H had the fastest growing economy in Europe, it prepared poorly for a war, which it continued to bungle for over three years, on three separate fronts - yet it still outlasted Imperial Russia. While A-H was certainly propped up by Germany, the same could be said about the British and French - by the USA to a greater extent.
Ignorance and a lack of research?

With victory in the Balkans and against Russia, the biggest problem for Austria's stability for the immediate future could actually be Hungary and its reaction after Franz Josef is gone in a few years. Especially depending on whether or not his successor makes any drastic reforms at Hungary's expense. Without FF, the federalization plan should be more or less shelved, much to the relief of Budapest, so the war actually increases the empire's stability, just from that.
More nonsense.

I think The Magyars will learn they reached their apex of power, independance means they will be facing alone Balkan country with an axe to grind against them...when the KuK give more security, in exchange of continued magyarization of transleithania,they would not bother more
Spot on. The wet dream for the Magyars was to be in the tent pissing in, rather than in and pissing out or (nightmare) outside the tent fending off the jackals.
 
Spot on. The wet dream for the Magyars was to be in the tent pissing in, rather than in and pissing out or (nightmare) outside the tent fending off the jackals.
Whereas their real choice was between being a more or less equal partner with Austria or else a *very* junior partner to a much-enlarged Germany.
 
The United States was very clearly a country the UK had nothing to worry about as they were far away from the mainland and had very little interest in the UK's (for lack of a better word) sphere. Such is not the case with a WWI-victorious Germany, which is on the brink of (or has obtained) hegemony in Europe. Preventing any one country from achieving this status had been the UK's policy towards mainland Europe for the past hundred years or so, and OTL shows they were willing to go so far as to actively work against the interests of France (their ally) at Versailles out of fear of French domination of Europe. And France didn't even have a navy remotely comparable to the RN.
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense.

OTL on the eve of war only one member of the British Liberal Cabinet was enthusiastic about war with Germany - and even Churchill's oratory failed to sway anyone else on the matter. OTL much of Grey's diplomacy in the years prior to the war was done in the shadows, since he had been put on notice his dealings with the French was jeopardising British relations with the Germans. On the eve of war, the British Cabinet were outraged to hear of Grey's private dealings with the French. It was a priority for the majority of Cabinet, that Britain retained a free hand, a cornerstone of isolationism - not some "Yes Minister" conspiracy theory.

In this scenario Imperial Germany is very much the dominant European power and there is nothing Britain can do to change that. Indeed, the Kaiser would be expecting the British and the Russians to be competing for his affections.

Whereas their real choice was between being a more or less equal partner with Austria or else a *very* junior partner to a much-enlarged Germany.
Eh?
 

Stenz

Monthly Donor
Whereas their real choice was between being a more or less equal partner with Austria or else a *very* junior partner to a much-enlarged Germany.
Do what now?

Not even remotely true OTL and ITTL where the CP wins early even less likely to be true.
 
Heydrich, goring, a violent homosexual and himmler...amd what make hitler? failed artist? and goebbles? failed journalist/writer? nah there would not be nazi, the DAP would be irrelevant ITTL.
"A broken down drug-addicted ex-pilot, a failed chicken farmer, an unsuccessful snob of a champagne salesman with a fake title and a ratty little lecher embittered by a club foot. A gang of total deadbeats, led by a paranoid failed art student."
 
It has been my understanding that the British-German relations were actually pretty well-functioning, even though the Kaizer did his best to annoy all and sundry.

After all, it was family at a very royal level.

… and it was cooperation at a very ministerial level.

To some extent, I believe that British civil servants and anyone higher on the ladder would rather deal with the Germans than the French. Fashoda was not forgotten was it?

So, if the shooting would be over in 1914, there are indeed some 'loose ends':
- Balkans - Would still be a melting pot and still cause trouble
- German colonial ambitions - could Britain tell them to cool it and get on with something else?
- AH and Italy - still at each other's throats in the Adriatic
- Ottoman empire: would it survive in a peaceful world?

France would be isolated. Exactly as Bismarck had always maintained.

... But how would the peace treaty look? if millions had not died and the 'hatred among nations' would be avoided (short war, not too many dead), the a Versaille-style peace would not be on the table.

The position of USA would be different. When would USA start to throw its weight around?
 
It depends somewhat on what the quick CP victory is?

If the Germans breakthrough to Paris and the French seek terms - how this is done is unclear but lets say the BEF retreats to the Channel rather than falling back on Paris leading to no miracle on the Marne.

The battle would be over by late 1914 and this would preempt any Italian intervention on the allied side and probably forestall Ottoman entry as well. Although the Ottomans might jump in at the end if the UK acts in the same manner over the warships. It's just possible Italy might do a 1940 and jump in against France as well although they were not bound by treaty.

UK is in the blame game for the fiasco over French military incompetence, Russia has been given a bloody nose with Tannenberg and Masuriuan Lakes and is probably looking at another round of 1905 style protests.

It would depend on what Germany actually wants to do with the the war - the war aims of Germany in a short war are not clear. The September programme envisaged great swathes of France and Belgium annexed. Plus Poland and the Baltics separated from Russia. These aims aren't really compatible with a short war as both UK and Russia will hang in there and possibly France will not capitulate either.

Allowing some minor border adjustments in the West and some autonomy for the Baltics and Poland in the East might be possible. But the one aim which would kick in is the Customs Union. This would probably trigger a trade war with UK and its Empire (and possibly USA depending how it is framed)
 
How? In a quick CP victory Austria-Hungary is absorbed by Germany? Where the hell does that come from?
Well, in a CP victory the Dual Monarchy either stays together or it falls apart.

If it stays together, that means the Magyars stay partnered with Austria, as before. If it splits, then most of the Austrian half is absorbed by Germany (or so closely linked that it might as well be and Hungary is totally overshadowed by its German neighbour - a very unequal partnership indeed. Afaik there seems to be no third alternative.
 
Russia is more likely to fall apart than AH in my eyes. The sole son of Nicholas II is a hemophiliac and unlikely to live past 30, Rasputin is still running around, you have enough boiling ethnic tension to make a stew, there is the possibility of some sort of revolution, Nicholas is still clueless and they've just lost their second war in ten years. A Russian Civil War in this scenario seems more like a when, not if.

As for everyone else, it will be business as usual in GB but anything could happen in Ireland, France will go right and the level of possible authoritarianism varies, Italy will have a more calm 20s than OTL but still be a bit crazy, AH and the Ottos are good for now but would struggle if they lost a war badly and Germany will have a lot of tension between Wilhelm II and the Reichstag, which will eventually have a SPD majority.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Absolute garbage.



Ignorance and a lack of research?



More nonsense.



Spot on. The wet dream for the Magyars was to be in the tent pissing in, rather than in and pissing out or (nightmare) outside the tent fending off the jackals.
Who pissed in your corn flakes this morning?

You would be well advised to be a LOT less abrasive replying to folks going forward.
 
I feeel like people always think avoiding nazism or the ussr means the world is fundamentally better, but such a world would likely see extended imperialism and forget the suffering of Europe's colonial subjects in africaand asia... people here tend to forget that these institutions weere maintained solely to benefit the colonial powers at the expense of millions... reform wasnt really there to uplift natives, it was always placating the locals underfoot to help european powers... i never like this question because people measure a "better world" by removing the wars and holocaust in Europe but that discredits the potential misery of extended colonialism... the world is different,but may not always be better for everyone. Its just fiction after a point in the end, saying it would be better always seems silly because we never really know,we only speculate
There's actually a way this might lead to a "win-win" for the global north and south, west and east. Less bloodshed in Europe, and earlier decolonization. Somebody argued it in a recent AHC thread on earlier decolonization. They said with avoidance of WWII (and maybe WWI) the advance ofapplied consumer technology goes faster, leading to faster development of television, leading to unwillingness of western populations to watch their soldiers mired in putting down colonial unrest.

If the French have lost the war in a single season, then they have clearly shit the bed and are scarcely going to be motivated to immediately start planning a third round. Again, based on the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war, after reparations, its going to take at least 20 years for France to drag itself off the floor.
At the very least, one strategic "lesson" the French may take away from this is that they do not, repeat not, want to be Germany's first target and so do not want to be involved at the outset of any war. They'll resign themselves to being a minor military and colonial power, and perhaps think of revenge, but won't commit themselves in any fashion against Germany, unless an opportunity comes up like gross German instability, or Germany getting deeply involved in hostilities with Russia and Britain and starting to do poorly.

OTL on the eve of war only one member of the British Liberal Cabinet was enthusiastic about war with Germany - and even Churchill's oratory failed to sway anyone else on the matter. OTL much of Grey's diplomacy in the years prior to the war was done in the shadows, since he had been put on notice his dealings with the French was jeopardising British relations with the Germans. On the eve of war, the British Cabinet were outraged to hear of Grey's private dealings with the French. It was a priority for the majority of Cabinet, that Britain retained a free hand, a cornerstone of isolationism - not some "Yes Minister" conspiracy theory.
But are the "lack of enthusiasm" of the Cabinet, Grey being put "on notice", Cabinet "outrage", and the "priority" for keeping a "free hand" really all that historically significant?

After all, Britain went to war and kept its commitments to the French, whether liking it or not.

Much is made of British "reluctance" to get it's empire, "obtained in a fit of absentmindedness" and all that, and its reluctance to get into continental commitments, but that's what she ended up doing, no matter how many ministers' diaries have hand-wringing entries about their doubts. To regard their doubts as more important than their ultimate actions is possibly to over privilege the significance of consciously written testimonial statements above all else.
 
It’s utterly abhorrent to think that the end result of the 20th century would’ve been better if only everybody had been nice to Germany and not forced them to murder as many as 85 million people because they were sore losers.
If this is abhorrent or no doesn't matter. The causality of the events doesn't give a shit about what's right or wrong. While I believe that a CP victory could've(probably) created an awful world and maybe even worse than OTL, is bullshit to say it couldn't be better cuz " oh no is imoral cuz they acted bad and they are sore losers so if they won and things are good it would still be bad".
 
Last edited:
But are the "lack of enthusiasm" of the Cabinet, Grey being put "on notice", Cabinet "outrage", and the "priority" for keeping a "free hand" really all that historically significant?

After all, Britain went to war and kept its commitments to the French, whether liking it or not.

Much is made of British "reluctance" to get it's empire, "obtained in a fit of absentmindedness" and all that, and its reluctance to get into continental commitments, but that's what she ended up doing, no matter how many ministers' diaries have hand-wringing entries about their doubts. To regard their doubts as more important than their ultimate actions is possibly to over privilege the significance of consciously written testimonial statements above all else.
I was responding to the suggestion British diplomacy had a permanently entrenched anti-German sentiment, due to some imagined over-riding balance-of-power doctrine. The fact those opinions/ doubts being expressed were in the majority until the Germans went through Belgium, which suggests this British balance of power doctrine has been imagined retrospectively.
 
Top