WWII in world post-Central Powers victory

[Onkel Willie]

What do you think World War II would be like in world where Germany won WWI, assuming it sill happens?
Point of divergences: no USW, so USA remains neutral and France surrenders in 1917 or 1918. Russia still goes communist (although probably more contained than in OTl - no Ukraine).
I think Nazi-like regime is likely to come to power in France. Even if it does not, anyways France obviously would want revenge, and Britain probably too. Not sure if they will make alliance with Soviet Russia...

Like other posters in this thread, I'm sceptical there would be a WW II in a scenario where the Central Powers won in 1917 or 1918. The peace terms the French will get won't be a slap on the wrist, but more likely an alt-Versailles or something even worse: crippling war reparations, demilitarization of the border, a police force sized army, German naval bases on the Channel coast, annexation of the extremely important coal producing Brie-Longwy area and whatever colonies the Germans fancy and which the British will likely give to prevent a total occupation of France (and Belgium).

Even if some French version of Hitler rearms and the Germans let them for some reason, Germany outnumbers the French 3:2 and has a much larger economy with way more coal and steel. Moreover, in a 1917/1918 peace Russia won't be there as an ally. With WW I over and Brest-Litovsk hiving off Ukraine, Poland, the Baltics and Finland, Germany will then move to kill the Bolshevik revolution in its cradle and after that we're likely looking at a Warlord Russia which to Germany would be what China was to Japan in the interbellum.

Not saying it's impossible, but it's unlikely. Before making a move, France would need to find some very powerful allies: Britain (obviously) but also the United States, and the latter needs to be in from the start at a war footing to prevent France from falling. The French would understand this. An alternative to wow Germany into some kind of advantageous peace would be a French blitzkrieg, but I'm not sure they'd develop it. In the end, proxy wars are more likely IMHO.

 

[MichaelWest]

My opinion is that Italy is uniquely positioned to go Fascist in either an Entente victory or defeat, in both she has lost a lot for very little, the butterflies might not unravel the Mussolini magic. I think it depends more on if we get s USSR still. If not, Italy might be just as chaotic as the Third Republic but not fall under Mussolini as Il Duce, he may end up coming and going as governments stand up and fall. But Italy can become a wildcard again, its interests are served by siding once more with Germany.

 

[Hagre]

his father probably punished him severely

This thread was sponsored by NordVPN and you too can outrage your father.

 

[Siar]

But wouldnt revanchist France find an ally in Britain? Britain has always been enemy of most powerful country on the continent. And I am not sure if they would ally with Soviet Russia (it still goes Soviet since Whites failed to win even with Entente`s help, and war-tired Germans cannot realistically do much more than Entente did - only to somewhat contain Reds) but such alliance does not seem impossible. USSSR after industrialization is a credible threat even when contained I think and shouldnt be underestimated. Especially since "barrier countries" are rather weak.
Dunno about Japan (which had been friendly to Britain back then) and USA positions

 

[Lalli]

If the CP win the world will revolve around 3 or 4 superpowers; greater German mitteleuropa, USA, USSR (after 20 years) with maybe an Anglo French strategic cooperation as a quasi 4th superpower.

The US will complete the expansion of the RA and NG to 175k and 440k by 1921 and the USN will go to 20 BBs, 6 BCs and 16 cruisers by 1921.

The Soviets did a forced industrialization that made them a match for OTL Germany.

Mitteleuropa would make Germany far more resilient.

Basically these 3 superpowers can't be fought by anyone other than another superpower. A-F quasi superpower is better than nothing but doesn't make them the equivalent of the other 3 due to their external lines of communication.

Germany is definitely most powerful nation in Europe but hardly still superpower. Great power definitely. USA probably remain isolationist and not give any shit to European affairs. USSR is not any kind of superpower. Barely even great power if even it is exist. Whites might win war when Germany is going to help Whites. After White victory Russia probably goes as war lordism. United Kingdom is only nation which could be call as superpower on its own rights and probably only one who can challenge Germany. France is too weak challenge Germany alone.

 

[David T]

I think the "country X goes Nazi because it lost a war" trope is overused. An obvious counterpoint is France itself. France suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of Prussia. It lost its reputation of Europe's top dog. The lost Alsace-Lorraine became the archetypal irredenta. It was made to pay considerable reparations. And yet it remained one of the world's most democratic countries.

Maybe one reason is that it lost the war under Napoleon III. If it had lost it under a democratic republic instead, democracy and republicanism might be considerably more discredited in France.

 

[M79]

A very mild World War I with a late 1914/early 1915 conclusion might see another war of greater intensity especially if an Allied equal to the 'stab in the back' myth takes hold. And even in the Allied countries revilts/general strikes were in place not long after peace began, there were better excuses among the victors to quell the rioters than not.

 

[Lalli]

A very mild World War I with a late 1914/early 1915 conclusion might see another war of greater intensity especially if an Allied equal to the 'stab in the back' myth takes hold. And even in the Allied countries revilts/general strikes were in place not long after peace began, there were better excuses among the victors to quell the rioters than not.

If war ends very early I can't there being revanchism. Economies are not so ruined, not so many lost lives and probably peace terms wouldn't be so harsh.

 

[Riain]

Germany is definitely most powerful nation in Europe but hardly still superpower. Great power definitely. USA probably remain isolationist and not give any shit to European affairs. USSR is not any kind of superpower. Barely even great power if even it is exist. Whites might win war when Germany is going to help Whites. After White victory Russia probably goes as war lordism. United Kingdom is only nation which could be call as superpower on its own rights and probably only one who can challenge Germany. France is too weak challenge Germany alone.

Here is a link to Kennedy's table from Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, shares of war making potential just before WW2. http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

These would be quite similar to the table from ttl, but with Germany being bigger at the expense of France, Italy and Soviets but also of its own accord from mitteleuropa. IOTL cold war the Soviet Union was considered a superpower with 50% of the US GDP, so I fail to see how GGME isn't a superpower in the 30s and Britain is.

 

[Lalli]

Here is a link to Kennedy's table from Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, shares of war making potential just before WW2. http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

These would be quite similar to the table from ttl, but with Germany being bigger at the expense of France, Italy and Soviets but also of its own accord from mitteleuropa. IOTL cold war the Soviet Union was considered a superpower with 50% of the US GDP, so I fail to see how GGME isn't a superpower in the 30s and Britain is.

UK has still stronger navy and it has larger empire and more of influence over the world. Germany is globally important but it can't project its power with same way as UK can.

And note that USSR have not Ukraine which affect much. USSR is too pretty alone when Germany is not going make any kind of deals with that. France is only potential friend but Mitteleuropa is between of them.

 

[Riain]

UK has still stronger navy and it has larger empire and more of influence over the world.

In 1919 sure, and with CP victory there will be no locust years and no 10 year rule so hard power will be retained like it was IOTL by building the G3 and N3 classes. However the British share of world wealth a power is shrinking, especially given victorious Germany's growth and sheer size.

Germany is globally important but it can't project its power with same way as UK can.

Again, sure in 1919, but WW2 isn't going to break out 6 months after WW1 ended, it will take a decade or more likely 2. In victory Germany will regain her colonies and claim French, British and possibly Belgian colonies, and possibly break up the Portuguese empire as they planned with Britain before the war. This will give Germany much greater global power and influence, which will likely increase further if they can station naval forces in France and AH. With the extra wealth Germany will be able to refocus its efforts on the Navy as a power projection tool.

And note that USSR have not Ukraine which affect much

True, but Russia itself is still huge, populous and rich in underdeveloped resources. It is ripe for massive growth and had massive growth in the 50s under the Soviet system.

USSR is too pretty alone when Germany is not going make any kind of deals with that. France is only potential friend but Mitteleuropa is between of them.

The 3 or 4 superpowers I imagine doesn't leave much room for allies. If there are 3 superpowers the only allies of any value are Britain, France, Japan and Italy (assuming AH joins MittelEuropa), if there is an Anglo-French quasi 4th superpower then there are only 2 possible allies both of which are likely to be aligned with A-F.

Britain is a swing power in my mind. IOTL it had 10.5% of world war making potential, about 2/3 of Germany and USSR but more than double France, triple Japan and quadruple Italy. She is the smallest power than can conceivably be the centrepiece of an alliance or act alone knowing she is difficult to crush, but this would be far from the preferred option. my guess is that in a CP victory Britain would retain the Japanese and French alliances and possibly get Italy as well. Such an alliance could hold it's own against any of the other 3 in good circumstances but would be vulnerable to defeat in detail; having Japan and Italy on side isn't much good when German MittelEuropa defeats France in 6-8 weeks.

 

[anotherlurker]

True, but Russia itself is still huge, populous and rich in underdeveloped resources. It is ripe for massive growth and had massive growth in the 50s under the Soviet system.

In the 20s and 30s the Soviets sold their grain at rock bottom prices to import machinery, then with their deal with the Nazis they sent them minerals and oil in exchange for machienry, and then after the war they relocated whole industrial parks from their occupation zone to the Soviet Union. Now without Ukraine and the Kaukasus options 1 and 2 are not possible any more, and without a war option 3 also does not work. While Eastern Russia and Siberia are rich in resources at the time those were not yet exploited on a large scale, that comes later and needs investment to make it happen.

Unlike OTL where the SU recoverd to pre WW1 level in 1930 or so here it would take longer, meanwhile Germany and its coalition are not inhibited by being on the losing side and tearing into each other and move on instead. Mitteleuropa in 1930 has an economy about as large as teh USA (180 million people at i'd guess 0.6 % of USA gdp/capita vs 123 million people in the USA), the Soviets can't keep up with that, Ukraine or not.

My own power level ranking for a WW2 time frame would be:
1 German led Mitteleuropa (high militar expenses)
2 USA (high economy, low military expenses)
3 France/Uk alliance
4 Japan more or less = Soviet Union

 

[Riain]

My own power level ranking for a WW2 time frame would be:
1 German led Mitteleuropa (high militar expenses)
2 USA (high economy, low military expenses)
3 France/Uk alliance
4 Japan more or less = Soviet Union

I believe Kennedy's table only refers to economic potential rather than actuality. So IOTL while Germany had a touch more potential than the Soviet Union the Soviets had 25,000 tanks and the Germans didn't.

However in a total war the brute economic facts do correlate closely to outcomes.

 

[Siar]

I believe Kennedy's table only refers to economic potential rather than actuality. So IOTL while Germany had a touch more potential than the Soviet Union the Soviets had 25,000 tanks and the Germans didn't.

However in a total war the brute economic facts do correlate closely to outcomes

Thats because USSR switched to total war mode since the beginning of the war, while Reich switched only in 1944, not using its potential before due to mostly political reasons ("guns AND butter", yes)

 

[Avrorrange]

Like other posters in this thread, I'm sceptical there would be a WW II in a scenario where the Central Powers won in 1917 or 1918. The peace terms the French will get won't be a slap on the wrist, but more likely an alt-Versailles or something even worse: crippling war reparations, demilitarization of the border, a police force sized army, German naval bases on the Channel coast, annexation of the extremely important coal producing Brie-Longwy area and whatever colonies the Germans fancy and which the British will likely give to prevent a total occupation of France (and Belgium).

Even if some French version of Hitler rearms and the Germans let them for some reason, Germany outnumbers the French 3:2 and has a much larger economy with way more coal and steel. Moreover, in a 1917/1918 peace Russia won't be there as an ally. With WW I over and Brest-Litovsk hiving off Ukraine, Poland, the Baltics and Finland, Germany will then move to kill the Bolshevik revolution in its cradle and after that we're likely looking at a Warlord Russia which to Germany would be what China was to Japan in the interbellum.

Not saying it's impossible, but it's unlikely. Before making a move, France would need to find some very powerful allies: Britain (obviously) but also the United States, and the latter needs to be in from the start at a war footing to prevent France from falling. The French would understand this. An alternative to wow Germany into some kind of advantageous peace would be a French blitzkrieg, but I'm not sure they'd develop it. In the end, proxy wars are more likely IMHO.

This is all assuming Germany has any willpower left to do it. Germany winning with a late war POD would have been pretty exhausted as well and would have to deal with issues at home too. Same with their allies.

 

[anotherlurker]

This is all assuming Germany has any willpower left to do it. Germany winning with a late war POD would have been pretty exhausted as well and would have to deal with issues at home too. Same with their allies.

Post 1918 the Allies sent soldiers pretty much everywhere to fight. This is more of a mop up action, not reenacting the Battle at the Somme. A few properly supplied and equipped divisions is all it would need to turn the tables in the Russian civilwar. OTL Germany fought communists as well as local independence movements in the East after the war. The Soviet forces were not what they were to be in 1944, not even what they were in 39.

 

[Augenis]

RE: France being the Nazi Germany equivalent in a scenario where the Central Powers win WW1

I agree with the idea that it is a cliche, and in my opinion, it is a really reductionist way of looking into things - it essentially reduces countries to a very simplistic mentality of losing a war = authoritarian revanchism. The conditions which led to the rise of fascism in Germany and Italy and Showa militarism in Japan simply aren't present in any similar form in post-defeat France.

Germany, Italy and Japan weren't just "losers" - they were losers who were entitled to a belief that they should have won. The average German person was fed with propaganda that the Imperial German Army was winning at every front and victory is near, Germany was universally considered to be the most premier military power on the continent, and they surrendered at a moment when Entente forces had yet to march into German soil and Germany occupied most of Eastern Europe after the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. Italy and Japan didn't even lose - they fought on the winning side of the war and yet received less than what they believed they were entitled to in the aftermath. Italy's losses in the war far outweighed the meager gains they made in the treaties with Austria, Japan was still unrecognized for its merits and did not receive the Racial Equality Clause they wanted even though they saw WW1 as the chance to be accepted into the ranks of the Great Powers.

From such a condition rises the belief that not only is revenge righteous, it's actually achievable - after all, you lost despite winning, so next time you can actually win! That's what ended up fueling fascism in Italy, Nazism in Germany, and caused the decay of Taisho democracy in Japan.

France did have a period when they exhibited something similar, it was the Third Republic. As democratic as it was, it was the most revanchist state in Europe, it narrowly avoided an actual dictatorship with Boulanger, and its political consensus drove it straight to war with Germany.

France after World War I, on the other hand? It's lost a second time, and this time even with the support of Britain and Russia, and nobody is going to dispute that they lost fair and square - German troops stand in Paris once again, after all. You don't have a situation like Germany where the loss in the war is seen as something which "shouldn't" have happened. What is an aspiring French Hitler going to say to his subordinates or the public to convince them that they can actually win a third time? When they are weaker than in 1914, when all of their potential allies are weaker than in 1914, when they already lost twice against a state more powerful in all measurements? Even the real Hitler had trouble with generals who feared getting into a fight with France, and he was arguing from a position with greater population and industry, whereas France's position is massively worse.

Unless something unexpected happens (Germany falls to a revolution or something), I believe France would most likely be somewhat similar to post-WW2 Germany - a state which has lost twice and has come to realize that they're not going to win a third time, so they choose to integrate into the new order instead.

 

[Riain]

Thats because USSR switched to total war mode since the beginning of the war, while Reich switched only in 1944, not using its potential before due to mostly political reasons ("guns AND butter", yes)

I meant in 1940 or so, because the Soviets had been producing a lot of tanks from the late 20s all the way to WW2 whereas Germany only started producing tanks in the mid 30s from scratch. It's like the German situation vis a vis Britain with the navy, Britain had a big navy from 1919 whereas Germany only started building theirs from the 30s.

This is more of a comment on the US than the Europeans. The 1916 Defense Act authorised an Army of 175,000 men and a National Guard of 440,000 men by 1921, which is smaller than the 1914 British Regular and Territorial Army let alone the millions of men the French, German and Russians could put into the field in 1914. So while the US had a huge economy and was thus potentially the biggest military in the world they would likely lose initial battles against countries with smaller economies but bigger peacetime militaries.

 

[M79]

I think France will still be irredentist, there will still be residual anger over Alsace and Lorraine plus any other territory they lose. It took Germany literally being flattened and cut in two to give up their aspirations, it might take the same for any other (former) Great Power to do the same.

 

[xsampa]

Germany might join the USA as an "open door" club member in China, both have incentives to break the British Empire and even to breakup the French Empire. Th

What about taking over the Ottomans if they collapse?