Talk Elections

I'm curious what they would have done, something tells me they would have annexed Luxembourg, anymore things though? Because they never had a mandate if they won.

Russia aside, there were signs that Germany was willing to be moderately more forgiving of its Western European enemies than those enemies were of it.  Austria-Hungary, on the other hand, may have been a bit meaner.

Agreed.  Russia would lose its areas of modern Poland and Belarus, creating a puppet Poland out of those areas, and a puppet Ukraine out of that nation.  Finland would gain independence, but would be under essentially the same level of German influence as in the OT, which is to say, not much.  Germany likely would have taken a small portion of French territory, but not the huge swath often portrayed.  Belgium would become a German puppet state, also.

The British Empire would not have been under threat in any meaningful way, in the short term.  Full Irish independence might have been a condition of the treaty, but it might just has easily not have been, which might have meant no Irish independence, as England came down hard to reclaim some of its prestige.  Britain likely would have lost a few key, strategic islands in the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and Pacific, but not much else.

The Austrian-Hungarians, however, likely would have done quite differently.  Italy would have experience major territorial losses in its Northeast, perhaps even losing Venice.  Serbia would fall completely under Austrian rule, as would Montenegro and Albania.  Romania would likely have been divided between Bulgaria and Austria.  Significant ethnic strife, and cleansing" would likely have ensued.

The Ottomans would probably try to lay claim to Greece, but success wouldn't be assured, with some gains in the Caucuses.  The Armenian genocide likely would have been even worse, and similar incidents would have occurred in all the lands the Ottomans nearly laid claim to.

In the long term, I think it is entirely plausible that Action Francias could have taken over the the French government and brought France under fascists rule.  The French, not having much experience with real democratic government, likely would have been as disillusioned with it as the German populace in 1932.

A more moderate Russian government, forced into compromise, might, indeed not all into communism.  In fact, the Germans occupying Ukraine likely would have doen what they could to prevent it.

An Italian regime in Rome, having lost all credibility, might have fallen in favor of a disunified peninsula, once again, though, probably only with three states, at the most.

Effects beyond that are hard to judge.  Likely Japan would have continued, or recontinued the war with Germany in the Pacific, and achieved victory.  A war between the United States and Japan was going to happen, sooner or later, but it would have been a different kind of war, and indeed, might have been started by the United States.

The United States is the major wildcard.  Would it have used this defeat (or rather, most likely, lack of entry into the war) as a confirmation of isolationism, or would it have tried to take advantage of the situation to expand its spheres of influence?

I replied to something similar a while back;


----


I have a feeling the Ottomans would have walked away with nothing and collapsed anyway. Barring a few islands here and there, Greece was there to stay. The idea of surrendering the 'birthplace' of classical of European culture and thought (to which the Central Powers claimed to embrace) to the 'barbarous' and of course Muslim Ottomans would not be entertained. I have a feeling the Ottamans would have made a military move against Greece and seen Austrian forces intervene.

The Austrians would have room to territorially expand in the Balkans and in Venice. Moving beyond Galicia into the Ukraine and Poland was unlikely; Germany had no desire for manic expansion in Eastern Europe, but would create a half dozen buffer states (Poland, Livonia, Ukraine) between itself and Russia. Austria would get everything in the Balkans except Greece and Bulgaria. I agree Romana would have been vulnerable, but only to the extent that the Bulgarians got what was originally promised to them in the Treaty of San Stefano. Romania I can see being 'collapsed' into two client states, Moldova and Wallachia.

The Ottoman Empire would be roughly today's Turkey, perhaps with gains in the Caucuses.

A-H would have become A-H-S-C Empire or the Habsburg Domains, a loose confeneration.  The Baltic grand duchies would have been independent along with the Kingdom of Finland,  The German Empire would have included the constituent states of the GD of Luxembourg (which almost happened) and the Kingdom of Belgium.  There may have been the GD of Burgundy.

In 1931, constitutional reform in the Greater Germanic Empire lead to a parliamentary monarchy, similar to Great Britain in 1900. 

There is such parts of Alternatge History I do not understand, such as a book I read in Which Germany wins WW1 and establishes a mandate over Canada. Impossible on every level.

Africa would be strongly redrawn in the aftermath of a Central Power victory.  Morocco likely regains independence for a while or becomes wholly Spanish if Germany desires to add Rio Muni to an expanded Kamerun.  Germany takes Walvis Bay and maybe Nyasaland (Malawi) and Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) from Britain, Angola and Northern Mozambique (making the Zambezi River the  southern limit of German control in East Africa) from the Portuguese, French Equatorial Africa and likely Dahomey from the French, and last but not least the Belgian Congo. (Expect many reports in the 1920s on the Belgian genocide there to justify taking away the entirety of Belgium's colonial territory.)

Italy might gain some territory, especially Tunisia, if Italy remains true to the Triple Alliance.

Alot depends on when Germany wins the war, whether Paris Falls in 1914 or the Western Front collapses in 1918, both would have had very different consquences?
(Either way another revolution in France would predictably be the result of an Allied defeat like in 1871. Whether it would have been successful or not is another question...)

Perhaps Anti-Semitism will arise in France instead of Germany. Intresting thought.

Some French territory would likely fall into German hands.  I high doubt that any British territory would, though.  The Germans wanted to be masters of the continent.  They had no interest in dismantling Britain's overseas empire.  Even through 1940, they were not interested in that.  Even Hitler wasn't seeking to destroy the Empire, and the Tories new this, which is why they were so eager to sign a peace.

Also, I assume that the most likely scenario for German victory is in 1918, resulting from lack of U.S. involvement.  Not to sound chauvinistic, by jingo, but the French were pretty damn close to collapsing before we landed, and the Germans still did pretty well throughout 1918.

The Germans however didn't want to be terrirorial masters of Europe; the concept of Kleindeutschland - small Germany still held sway. However they certainly wished to be economic masters of Europe. Which is why I believe they would wish buffer client states that served the German economic machine. There would be something amazingly 'capitalistic' about the whole venture.

Something I forgot to mention before now... the Austrian-Hungarian Empire was destined for bloody collapse, regardless of the results of the war.  It simply would have taken a little longer.  They would have been ripped apart by civil war likely all through the 1920's and 30's.  It is hard to say though whether this would have caused a wider war, or if it would have remained local.

Many people think that a victory by the Central Powers would have been the end of their alliance.  I doubt that.  Austria-Hungary was far to weak to think of fighting Germany, and their internal strife would have driven that point home.  Even had the Germans pursued such a course, which is highly doubtful (why would they want to), Vienna likely would have given up anything but the farm to prevent a war.

It is possible that efforts to put down Islamic revolts in the Balkins would have led to a standoff and possible war between Vienna and Istanbul, but the Ottmans would have had their own problems holding down the Arabs.

The reorganized Balkans would hardly have been a powderkeg.  Russia would be too far away to provide any aid, and with German puppet states surrounding Vienna from the northeast, a weakened Italian Peninsula to the west, a Germany disinterested in intervention to the northwest, and a weak Sultan to the west, its hard to see where the conflict would arise.

As I said, the mostly likely scenario for a future global conflict to start would be a standoff between the United States and Japan.  The Japanese would probably take the opportunity presented to pick the carcass of Russia along the Pacific Rim.  A Second Russo-Japanese War would probably be fought in the 1920's.  Russia would lose, emphatically.


Agreed.

Also, I would in no way discount the possibility of a War Plan Red-Orange Scenario from happening.  A war between the United States and the combined forces of Britain and Japan.

Can we make a game of this!! j/k


While the Japanese would certainly be 'game' I don't think the British would be so bellicose. The US and the UK were not engaged in any turf war prior to WWI and relationships were cordial. I could only see a war if the US provoked it and Japan responded. If Japan provoked it, Britain would not go to war (assuming the alliance system had broken down after the Great War) and our alliance with Japan ended in 1924 IIRC

If there was a war the US would be very vulnerable. I don't want to presume that they would be defeated but the experience of a naval assault would be...unpleasant.

Red-Orange was the scenario that the U.S. War Department feared the most, it was the one they thought most likely, and the one they thought we couldn't win.

If you lost do you think the United States would remain 'united'? What was the strength of feeling?

Yes, but the history of the future would have looked very different.  For instance, think more Malcolm X and less Dr. King.  Without integration being forced by the wars, it is hard to see how it might have happened at all.  A defeated United States would be more tumultuous than in actual history, and probably less willing to accept a change of the current order.  FDR barely kept this country out of the extremes, I wonder how we would have fared if things had been worse.

But, that is a worst case scenario.  It is hard to assume that "defeat" would have been total, no matter the circumstances.  If the United States had lost, then we likely would have been forced to give up the Pacific and Caribbean.

One key question is, how badly would the British have butchered us on the coast?  The royal navy could have pounded the crap out of our east coast cities, but would they have?  Had they, then the worst case scenario becomes more likely.

During a war between the United States and Great Britain, a negotiated peace is likely, with a quid pro quo, but it is hard to think that the Japanese would ever negotiate, and if they didn't, neither would the British, most likely.

An interesting side question is, what becomes of Churchill in this TL?  The Liberal Party would likely collapse anyway (more likely, with the loss of the war), but, as a major Amero-phile, would he have joined a Tory Party that would have supported the war?

Would he become like a Lincoln, ousted from power for speaking out against a popular war that he opposed?

Does anyone have a map of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?

()

Grey areas are the important parts.

And here be an editable map of Europe (not my own creation)

Full size in the Gallery

()

I think that map gives the Germans too much credit in terms of national sensitivities.  I highly doubt that would have gone out of their way to give all those nations states.  Three states, perhaps.  There would be a Ukraine (Moldova included), a Greater Poland (representing Belarus and the lower Baltic states in its boundaries), and then maybe a northern Baltic state encompassing Estonia and Latvia.  Basically, we would have a bunch of Czechoslovakias.

More likely four states.

At the time of the Armistice, the Germans had as their eastern puppet states, the Kingdom of Poland (consisting of Congress Poland minus territory annexed into the German Empire), a Kingdom of Lithuania that likely would have been expanded eastward into Belorussia, since that territory had been part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and a United Baltic Duchy covering the formerly Russian Baltic Governorships and was divided into seven cantons, three Estonian, and four Latvian.  They certainly would have set up a Kingdom of Ukraine as well.

As of 1 June 1918, the date of the map, the Germans hadn't yet decided how they would organize the Baltics, and so the mapmaker likely just used the boundaries of the Russian governates as his guide.

I don't think the US would have fared that badly in war against Japan and Britain. The US Navy was always world class from the 1890s onwards, and was on par with the German and British Fleets. Furthermore the US, as demonstrated in WWII had a much greater ability to build additional ships, and US commanders were far more tactically agile. The US strangled Japan in world war II with a submarine campaign, and its hard not to see the US do the same.

The British and Japanese might get off a few good early wins, but they could not defeat the US, and both would likely begin to starve by the end of the second year.

You're being absurdly optimistic about how well the U.S. would have fared in a war against Britain c. 1914

As of the outbreak of war, the USN had 10 dreadnought battleships in commission, 4 dreadnoughts under construction, plus 23 pre-dreadnought battleships, with some of the older ones not really useful except as training vessels.

In comparison, the Royal Navy had 20 dreadnoughts in commission, plus 2 others that would be seized from the Turks and put into commission in August 1914.

The Japanese Navy would have been a much easier target It had 2 dreadnoughts in commission (with an additional 4 under construction), 4 semi-dreadnoughts, plus a variety of pre-dreadnoughts (including some ships captured from the Russians during the Russo-Japanese War that had been obsolescent then).  However, British ships operating from Japanese ports in conjunction with their Japanese allies would have been able to take control of the Pacific.

The British decision to only finish those battleships near completion and not lay down new ships reflected the reality that the Royal Navy did not need more ships at the moment.  If it had needed them, it had the capability in place to at least match and probably exceed the American shipyards in construction of capital vessels.

As for submarine warfare strangling Japan, the submarines of the era were by and large not capable of the endurance needed to hunt down Japanese vessels in Japanese waters.  The first U.S. submarine designed for something more than coastal defense was the L-1 which went into commission in 1916.

Be that as it may in a conventional conflict, it bears remembering that the major reason Palmerston refused to intervene in 1863 in the US Civil War was fear of US Commerce raiders wiping out the British Maritime Fleet. Submarine warfare is exactly the sort of thing that would occur to the US in this scenario, and add to that a likely seizure of Canada.

Britain would have an enormous amount to lose from the war, even if it maintained naval superiority in the Atlantic, and the record both of its actual performance in the first world war(Jutland) and its amphibious assaults does not give much comfort that it would able to do more than keep the US Navy hemmed in. The US coast would be far too long for an effective blockade, landings would be bloody fiascoes which would simply get the British bogged down in guerrilla warfare, and all the time their merchant marine would be massacred.

At the same time you are forgetting that at this point the US industrial output was already more than twice that of Britain's, and far less dependent on trade and imports. It would have done far better in the war.

I actually will change my guess. You are right that the geographical limits of ships would probably make the Japanese safer. It would be the British who would be economically crippled.

You also forget the likelihood of a US sponsored Irish uprising as well.

That said, its for all of these reasons that i find the idea of this conflict implausible. Britain had so much more to lose than Japan from a war, and absolutely nothing to gain. the Japanese alliance wasn't worth one tenth that much, especially given its impossible to see what exactly the British would take from such a war. Hawaii? Cuba? Worth making a permanent enemy of the US next time the British had trouble in Europe?

I agree that any purely  Anglo-American war of that era would be likely to quickly settle down after the U.S. seizes Canada (less Vancouver and Newfoundland) while the U.K. seizes Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, Western Samoa, Cuba (a de facto American protectorate), and the Panama Canal with the U.K. controlling the seas.

Then things would head to the bargaining table.  However, I doubt we'd see a purely Anglo-American war  For the U.S. and the U.K. to head to war in the 1910s would have required a broader war in which they ended up on opposite sides.

Here's what I see probably happening:

- Germany annexes Belgian Congo, French Cameroon, Uganda, possibly Morocco, and some other African colonies and Pacific Islands
- Finland, the Baltic States, Poland, and Ukraine are all independent of Russia and become satellite kingdoms of Germany with German Princes on their respective thrones
- The Ottoman Empire still exists, though it probably doesn't gain much territory, and once the oil money starts flowing in, it will stick around for a very, very long time
- I have a difficult time seeing the Austro-Hungarian Empire gaining much territory as it was near collapse by the end of the war and probably wouldn't even survive long without Franz Joseph to hold things together; more likely Romania and Serbia each make some small territorial concessions, pay large indemnities, and get German princes for their kings.
- The British Empire probably survives mostly intact minus a few remote colonies here and there; the Royal Navy could blockade Germany indefinitely, plus the British had seized most of Germany's colonies early in the war which they would use as bargaining chips in negotiations