• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Aftermath of a Central Powers victory

Oh, and of course any Central Powers victory is likely to end with an expanded British Empire. That's going to combine with the trauma of defeat and economic devastation in bad ways- I expect decolonisation to be far more unpleasant than the bloody affair it already was OTL.
 
I can see possible scenarios where the longer-term effects of a Central Powers victory in WW1 lead to a better world than OTL. But that's mostly due to potential butterfly effects of avoiding a Great Depression, the significant population losses under early Soviet rule, any World War 2 as bloody as our one, and maybe colonial competition between Germany and Britain (with a wildcard US presence) leading to accelerated decolonisation due to the various powers supporting anticolonial rebellions in their rivals' territory.

But I don't think that these scenarios are very likely, and even if they eventuate, the short-term effects will be worse.
 
To say nothing of the coming breakdown of the Haspsburg Empire, which I expect to be much nastier if Germany is in a position to carve it up unchallenged.

I mean, I'm not one of those who think that the Austro-Hungarians were doomed in 1914- I mean, they were obviously doomed in their current form, but I don't think the total collapse of the polity had to happen- but any victory that leaves Germany as the clear winners will take a few years of war, war which will dramatically weaken the empire.

It will not be a good timeline to be Czech.

This is one thing I keep coming back to when considering any CP victory scenario and my conclusion just comes back to the Yugoslav Wars seventy years earlier over a far wider area fought by people who have just come through the worst human conflict to that time and with a powerful neighbour egging on the worst elements of the equivalent of the Serbians.

That's before we even consider the role that other nations might play in any such conflict...
 
A Germany that can win the naval war is a Germany that hasn't put enough resources into winning the land war, and vice versa.

Any Germany that loses the war on land, loses the war full stop.

Therefore, any 'Central Powers' victory presupposes a Germany that has triumphed in the East and has at least neutralised France, but has had to consign itself to the loss of its overseas empire to Britain.
 
That's probably a really good thing for large chunks of that empire, considering our earlier genocide talk

Kind of? In the short term, yes, but I think a loss in the Great War- even a loss where Britain technically comes out with a great deal more territory than when she started- would increase the chances of a much bloodier British decolonisation.

The age of full on British colonial genocide had largely passed, but a lot more bloodshed along the lines of Kenya or Partition or Aden or Suez or actually it's worth remembering that 'British decolonisation was peaceful' is a crock of shit. But this timeline would be worse.
 
Kind of? In the short term, yes, but I think a loss in the Great War- even a loss where Britain technically comes out with a great deal more territory than when she started- would increase the chances of a much bloodier British decolonisation.

The age of full on British colonial genocide had largely passed, but a lot more bloodshed along the lines of Kenya or Partition or Aden or Suez or actually it's worth remembering that 'British decolonisation was peaceful' is a crock of shit. But this timeline would be worse.

Another thing to consider in any CP victorious scenario is the impact on the UK even if it's a negotiated peace. The UK was teetering close to civil war in 1914 and, to paraphrase something @The Red likes to point out about the post-referendum riot in George Square, Glasgow and Belfast had workers' uprisings when the UK won the Great War. Then there's everything that would come later in 1919 OTL.
 
Last edited:
@Japhy whilst I can't disagree with your overall point, I do have some queries about some of the specific points that you've raised...

there's the plunder of Europe, there's a worldwide economic collapse

I still don't see how a worldwide economic collapse would happen. The world's economy wasn't dependent on France at the time, and it certainly wasn't dependent on Russia (otherwise it would have collapsed upon the Communist takeover). Germany still can't touch Britain, it can't touch Britain's colonies and it can't demand reparations off of Britain, and the same applies to America. So whilst Britain and America's economies would be damaged by a Central Powers victory, they would not be destroyed.

Also, isn't all of this based on the assumption that (as @SenatorChickpea said) a Central Powers victory would take place only after a few years of war? Surely a more likely scenario is that Britain stay out (or limit their involvement to naval actions) and Germany win by Christmas 1914, which as @Charles EP M. said would likely lead to a reduced need to plunder? Remember, it would be very difficult for the Central Powers to win a protracted war.

you have the entrenchment of Anti-Democratic forces in Germany

Well, in OTL democracy in Germany was highly dysfunctional for 11 years, and then after that it was dead in the west for 19 years and dead in the east for 60 years. Would it not be possible at all for the Kaiserreich to adopt democratic reforms before 1990?

and a government still centered around the Kaiser

Unless the Kaiser dies in 1918 of the Spanish Flu. I feel like the only POD that's being considered is the C-P victory on its own.
 
Well, in OTL democracy in Germany was highly dysfunctional for 11 years, and then after that it was dead in the west for 19 years and dead in the east for 60 years. Would it not be possible at all for the Kaiserreich to adopt democratic reforms before 1990?

It would be possible, yes, but it would take a whole lot of change and I imagine democratization would be very difficult overall, with aristocrats continuing to maintain large amounts of power and continued malapportionment in the Reichstag. Democracy would likely continue to be dysfunctional for decades after the alt-WWI.

Unless the Kaiser dies in 1918 of the Spanish Flu.

Then the government would be centred around another Kaiser, which would be just as bad.
 
@JaphyUnless the Kaiser dies in 1918 of the Spanish Flu. I feel like the only POD that's being considered is the C-P victory on its own.
If Wilhelm II dies his son Wilhelm becomes Kaiser. Crown Prince Wilhelm was very right-wing. During the 1920s he was a member of the Stahlhelm, which was a far-right group committed to ending Weimar democracy, and after his own political ambitions were denied by his father the Crown Prince supported Hitler (although he revoked his support once he realized that Hitler wasn't going to restore the monarchy). So basically there's zero chance that Kaiser Wilhelm III would do anything to help democracy, and if fascism finds a way into the German mainstream he's probably not going to resist it. If Crown Prince Wilhelm dies his son Wilhelm is next in the line of succession. I can't find a ton of information on Prince Wilhelm, but from what I can gather he was close with Stahlhelm leader Theodore Duesterberg and joined the Wehrmacht, so I can't imagine he was particularly progressive (also, he was 12 in 1918, and so for a few years he's going to be under the control of his advisors). This is a long-winded way of making @Indicus's point that German politics being centered around a Kaiser is going to be a bad thing.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top