A (late) Central Powers Victory: Some Musings

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Communism had Always been a violent ideology TBH. You can't call for brutal, quick and complete changes and be seen as moderate. At least, Liberalism became less 'revolutionnary' with Time during the 19th century.

That's in no small part because of the Bolsheviks.

I agree, but it wasn't madness IMO, but rather incompetence and... Boldness to Say the least.

Well... we'll never know.

We can't really know who was favored IOTL because each side (especially the Reds TBH) killed systematically any opponent. The White elites wouldn't be so royalist, and they were ones, who had a lot of power, who had unsterstood that only an Authoritarian republic could bring stability.

People hated both the Reds and the Whites, the more dissatisfied and bellicose tried to revolt with other peasants but most people didn't participate in no violence whatsoever and hoped to be able to continue to live their lives in peace.

The Reds industrialized by killing millions, kept russifying under Stalin and were the most brutal dictatorship You could possibly imagine, as well as being very unpopular, yet the regime lasted because of sheer oppression and violence. The difference with the Whites is that they industrialize slower and they are not as unpopular.

The Whites wouldn't be the same paranoid regime Stalin was, despite how terrible Russification was it usually didn't involved the genocide of millions of persons, they won't have a secret police as extensive as the NKVD had and they wouldn't collectivize agriculture and force industrialization, they wouldn't be as opressive but similarly to what happened with socialists during Nicholas II's reign they would have problems with the commoners.

Do you think the US would have crumbled like that if they had an economic crash and an uncompetent leader? The reality is that communism kept the population poor because of its inefficiency and that only external successes and oppression kept the regime in place.

To be fair it wasn't completely to excluded if someone incompetent takes office during the Great Depression.
Soviet system was quite inefficient but this could change ITTL, Soviet leadership is unlikely to be the same as OTL.

Actually, Russia was growing more powerful by the day and a growing bourgeoisie led to many reforms. Russia would never have become a Democracy, but it could have been the superpower of the 20th Century without WWI and without Nicholas' doubts and overall incompetence.

Russia was growing but you can see in WW1 what happened despite a decade to make reforms. Without WW1 Russia would've been a very important player however it would've needed much time to industrialize fully and without WW1 other powers remain very important on the global stage.

ITTL, the SPD rules Germany and Wilhelm II is just a figurehead. Hindenburg was popular because Germans needed a hero in the difficult times they were in. This is not the case ITTL.

Why would the SPD suddenly take all powers away from the Kaiser? A victory in WW1 would reinforce his internal position and while there might be some problems I don't see the SPD managing to do this.

 

[Drizzt]

Regarding Russia I think the discussion so far has neglegted one thing of paramount importance: Money!
Regardless of whether the Whites or the Reds win the Civil War they'll almost certainly default on both their pre-war debts to France as well as their war-debts to Britain as the Reds did in OTL or be unable to repay them. That's going the cool Britains interest in supporting Russias resurgence to say the least. Balance of Power was always more an excuse, rather than a reason and now with the precedent of the aftermath of the Great War, there'll be many who oppose any generosity towards Russia on the grounds that even if it works out regarding boxing in Germany it's not worth it, if Russia is never going to acutally repay their loans.

Why would the SPD suddenly take all powers away from the Kaiser? A victory in WW1 would reinforce his internal position and while there might be some problems I don't see the SPD managing to do this.

Because the Nobility Dominated German officers corps was utterly decimated in the first months of the war. By 1917 the "middle management" of the German military was utterly dominated by the Burgoise and other "upstarts". You are right the SPD wont just overthrow the Kaiser. But after the war the Kaiser will either agree to Parliamentary reforms with universal suffrage and his role become UK-light ceremonial or be made to understand, that the military is not going to fire on the demonstrations that are going on.
It wouldn't be like the French Revolution or the Glorious Revolution in the UK. It wouldn't need to be. It would be like the June Democratic Struggle in South Korea where the Old Guard suddenly wakes up to find, that instead of the just the usual malcontents most of the middle class also vocally demands democratic reforms and the bulk of the Army wont move against the protestors, while hinting that they would move against any army units that open fire on them.

 

[the Imperium of Canada]

Even if France goes Red, I'd question how "revanchist" it would actually be beyond the obligatory rhetoric against capitalist imperialism. While relations with Germany wouldn't exactly be good for obvious reasons, I strongly doubt a state found it on a revolution started by people very pissed off that they previous warmongering idiot establishment starting a pointless war that killed millions would be particularly interested in starting another one for a long while.

At the very least I'd expect a very strong quasi-pacifist tenancy within the Republic

Trortsky takes over

Trotsky coming to power in the first place is very very unlikely and him as a warmongering lunatic is just flat out a myth.

 

[Kronistry]

That's in no small part because of the Bolsheviks.

They were the first communists to succeed so we'll never know if something else is possible as every communist movement took them as an example.

People hated both the Reds and the Whites, the more dissatisfied and bellicose tried to revolt with other peasants but most people didn't participate in no violence whatsoever and hoped to be able to continue to live their lives in peace.

True. So who wins the civil war doesn't rest on who has the more popular support, as no one has it.

The Whites wouldn't be the same paranoid regime Stalin was, despite how terrible Russification was it usually didn't involved the genocide of millions of persons, they won't have a secret police as extensive as the NKVD had and they wouldn't collectivize agriculture and force industrialization, they wouldn't be as opressive but similarly to what happened with socialists during Nicholas II's reign they would have problems with the commoners.

Actually, this was exactly my point to show the Whites couldn't be more unpolar as they couldn't have been worse than the Reds on violence, oppression and death toll.

To be fair it wasn't completely to excluded if someone incompetent takes office during the Great Depression.
Soviet system was quite inefficient but this could change ITTL, Soviet leadership is unlikely to be the same as OTL.

I can't see the US falling apart like this during the GD, but maybe I'm wrong. However, I think you've got a good point that Germany's threat could force Soviet leadership to reform economically to favor efficiency over elite's position of power and ideology.

Russia was growing but you can see in WW1 what happened despite a decade to make reforms. Without WW1 Russia would've been a very important player however it would've needed much time to industrialize fully and without WW1 other powers remain very important on the global stage.

The key word here is just 'a decade'. Imagine Russia going to war in 1934 instead of 1914. Yes Germany would have been even more powerful, but time still favored Russia because it had way more demographic and economic potential as well as more ressources.

Why would the SPD suddenly take all powers away from the Kaiser? A victory in WW1 would reinforce his internal position and while there might be some problems I don't see the SPD managing to do this.

Why would the Kaiser be internally reinforced by WWI? The horrors of war would create a rush to liberalization and democratization, just like in France and the UK OTL. Do you think Germany is closer to go towards an 'Italian' path, where a dictator takes over? I don't think so, as Germany was already way more stable pre-WWI than Italy.

Trotsky coming to power in the first place is very very unlikely and him as a warmongering lunatic is just flat out a myth.

Why is it so unlikely? IMO if he had made good decisions and had a bit of luck he could have won his fight against Stalin and co. I didn't say he was a warmongering, just that he was less cautious on foreign policy than Stalin.

Even if France goes Red, I'd question how "revanchist" it would actually be beyond the obligatory rhetoric against capitalist imperialism. While relations with Germany wouldn't exactly be good for obvious reasons, I strongly doubt a state found it on a revolution started by people very pissed off that they previous warmongering idiot establishment starting a pointless war that killed millions would be particularly interested in starting another one for a long while.

At the very least I'd expect a very strong quasi-pacifist tenancy within the Republic

I agree. People tend to forget how exhausted France was after WWI. Its demographics before pre-WWI were already stagnating but after 4 years of the bloodiest war the country had ever known, it had become a catastrophy. OTL, France no longer had enough people to support its economy and the leaders decided not to give any new rights to women because there was a desperate need for more births.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Actually, this was exactly my point to show the Whites couldn't be more unpolar as they couldn't have been worse than the Reds on violence, oppression and death toll.

But people don't know that and will hate the Whites anyways, since they never experienced the Bolsheviks during peace time the Bolsheviks might be remembered as the unfortunate failed revolution of the proletariat.

I can't see the US falling apart like this during the GD, but maybe I'm wrong. However, I think you've got a good point that Germany's threat could force Soviet leadership to reform economically to favor efficiency over elite's position of power and ideology.

There always were potential threats to the USSR and Stalin how inefficient he could make the Soviet Union despite that, I don't see why he would bother changing his style of government.

The key word here is just 'a decade'. Imagine Russia going to war in 1934 instead of 1914. Yes Germany would have been even more powerful, but time still favored Russia because it had way more demographic and economic potential as well as more resources.

If you let Russia continue its path in 1934 it would still be less industrialized than OTL Soviet Union; the Russian Imperial and whatever the Whites come up with don't want the same kind of radical policies to make Russia a modern nation which makes its rise significantly slower.

Why would the Kaiser be internally reinforced by WWI? The horrors of war would create a rush to liberalization and democratization, just like in France and the UK OTL. Do you think Germany is closer to go towards an 'Italian' path, where a dictator takes over? I don't think so, as Germany was already way more stable pre-WWI than Italy.

Compared to OTL he has a much better position, it likely wouldn't be like Italy but I doubt it would be similar to Britain and France during the 20s, it would have some liberalization and democratization but I doubt the Kaiser would be relegated to the role of the King in the UK.

 

[Parma]

Broader effects:
Without a second World War, the following things would likely happen:

• Tens of millions of people aren't pointlessly slaughtered

This is probbaly the largest butterfly. Under the milions of men and women there would be most likely some one who eiter invent or discover things whihc would speed up development in technology, biology or medicin and of course among the deaths there would be individuals who contribute the to increase wellfare by their entrepeneur ship.

Electronics and television are introduced more quickly than in OTL, as they were set back by WWII.

No doubt this will happen faster, although probably not much more faster as in OTL. All beligerents, even the ''victors'' have wrecked economy, and huge state debt wich will have a negative impact on the economy for considreble time.

The USSR isn't destroyed demographically and is much healthier economically as well.

Not sure about that, the USSR have inherent to comunism, flawed economy. Beside this it will rahter sooner than later end in a terror state.

Nuclear power becomes much more widespread much earlier.

Probably Germany and other European countries will take the lead and indead the first pratical use will be peacefull, initially at a small scale, due to the cost. Unlikely that an atom bomb will be developed first, simply die to the immens development cost.

German pop culture would be globally relevant.

Very likely, the UFA studio's produced a very large number of films of all sorts. The UFA studio's and of course the Italian, French and British productions would match or even outclass the Hollywood productions. Not sure with music, May be the jazz from the USA is given a new twist in Germany. Who knows the electronic developments could lead to a decades earlier Kraftwerk group or a procucer like the Italian producer Giorgio Moroder.

Without the Indian National Congress boycotting the administration of the Raj during the war, the Muslim League doesn't gain nearly as much power as OTL, and thus India is united upon independence.

Do not know about it. May be there would not be a world wide group as the Muslim Brotherhood or Muslim League or any large scale anit colonial movement. After all the WW1 western front was a large show of barabarism, a huge decline of the moral high grounds the Europeans claimed to have.

With a surviving, if reduced Ottoman Empire and no WWII, the Middle East and Central Asia are likely much more stable.

Very doubtfull. The Ottoman Empire would try to hold it self together with ever increasing violence and to ever increasing failure. It is most likely it will fragmentate in smaller entities. Some in a calm a peace full amnner but mostly in a very violent way.

People would generally be more liberal without World War II, or at least as liberal as they are today.

Probably yes, due to an earlier increase in living standards, but also due to an much earlier emancipation of Women. The latter is made possible due to the absence of laws who prohibited married women to work. A measure to increas population after the war. earlier introduction of affordable automatic laundery machines. The wide spread use of automatic laundery machines liberate the women of the very time consuming task of washing of clothing. A proces which took 2 to 3 days.

Technology would be around the same as OTL, if not more advanced.

Several fileds will see a much more advanced level of technology.
Aviation would be much faster develop as in OTL.
Germany will not be hampered by limitations on de development and construction of airplanes as demanded in the Treaty of Versailles. This will liberate men like Hugo Junkers, who can continue their advanced aviation work in Germany and probably will find easier investors in Germany. The same probably is valubale for Dornier and several East European avialtion engineers who in OTL had to flee Europe. Most likeley all metal passengers planes are common at the end of the Twenties, a decade earlier as in OTL.
The same will be viable for the mass motorisation of Europe. It is very plausible that European manufactorers develop much earlier affordable cars like the Fiat 500, Volkswagen, Citroen 2CV etc.

 

[Kronistry]

This is probbaly the largest butterfly. Under the milions of men and women there would be most likely some one who eiter invent or discover things whihc would speed up development in technology, biology or medicin and of course among the deaths there would be individuals who contribute the to increase wellfare by their entrepeneur ship.

No doubt this will happen faster, although probably not much more faster as in OTL. All beligerents, even the ''victors'' have wrecked economy, and huge state debt wich will have a negative impact on the economy for considreble time.

Not sure about that, the USSR have inherent to comunism, flawed economy. Beside this it will rahter sooner than later end in a terror state.

Probably Germany and other European countries will take the lead and indead the first pratical use will be peacefull, initially at a small scale, due to the cost. Unlikely that an atom bomb will be developed first, simply die to the immens development cost.

Very likely, the UFA studio's produced a very large number of films of all sorts. The UFA studio's and of course the Italian, French and British productions would match or even outclass the Hollywood productions. Not sure with music, May be the jazz from the USA is given a new twist in Germany. Who knows the electronic developments could lead to a decades earlier Kraftwerk group or a procucer like the Italian producer Giorgio Moroder.

Do not know about it. May be there would not be a world wide group as the Muslim Brotherhood or Muslim League or any large scale anit colonial movement. After all the WW1 western front was a large show of barabarism, a huge decline of the moral high grounds the Europeans claimed to have.

Very doubtfull. The Ottoman Empire would try to hold it self together with ever increasing violence and to ever increasing failure. It is most likely it will fragmentate in smaller entities. Some in a calm a peace full amnner but mostly in a very violent way.

Probably yes, due to an earlier increase in living standards, but also due to an much earlier emancipation of Women. The latter is made possible due to the absence of laws who prohibited married women to work. A measure to increas population after the war. earlier introduction of affordable automatic laundery machines. The wide spread use of automatic laundery machines liberate the women of the very time consuming task of washing of clothing. A proces which took 2 to 3 days.

Several fileds will see a much more advanced level of technology.
Aviation would be much faster develop as in OTL.
Germany will not be hampered by limitations on de development and construction of airplanes as demanded in the Treaty of Versailles. This will liberate men like Hugo Junkers, who can continue their advanced aviation work in Germany and probably will find easier investors in Germany. The same probably is valubale for Dornier and several East European avialtion engineers who in OTL had to flee Europe. Most likeley all metal passengers planes are common at the end of the Twenties, a decade earlier as in OTL.
The same will be viable for the mass motorisation of Europe. It is very plausible that European manufactorers develop much earlier affordable cars like the Fiat 500, Volkswagen, Citroen 2CV etc.

I think most CP victory scenarios are way too optimistic. I agree that ITTL WW2 is very unlikely to break out (France and Italy are too exhausted, US doesn't care about Europe and the UK and USSR have no chance against Germany and its allies) but why most problems would be miraculously resolved? What will happen in defeated France and Italy? what about Christian minorities in the Ottoman Empire? Will the UK be able to maintain its empire, if not how will it collapse (I doubt it will be without bloodshed)? How will American-Japanese relations evolve, is a war likely? If not against the United States, will Japan turn its expansionist views against the British Empire? Could communism last for decades in a surrounded and weakened Russia? What if a new Russian civil war broke out? How will the decolonization process take place? Bloodier? With negotiated agreements like OTL? What if the United States decided to become expansionist and follow the German path in trying to compete with the British Empire to become a recognized superpower?

Here are just a few questions that need to be asked. As for the liberalization of society and new technologies, why would this TL follow OTL? Without World War II, Nazism and less communist influence, would conservatism remain predominant and counteract liberalism? I think so, and I don't see feminism or the civil rights movement of the 60s and 70s happening the way they did and gay rights would be even less heard. That's not to say it won't happen, but erasing the bloodiest war and its aftermath from history is the best way to get huge, unexpected butterflies. And also, if technology plays a big role in the emergence of new rights and societal trends, ideology and worldview play an equally important role.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

What will happen in defeated France and Italy?

The first will be the Third Republic under an even more unstable succession of governments, the second could still create fascism.

what about Christian minorities in the Ottoman Empire?

What the Ottomans held pre-WW1 was the most stable part of their empire, the Balkans were the most unstable part of the empire and even they had frequently to rely on outside help to liberate themselves, Armenians and Lebanese won't be able to seriously threaten Ottoman rule.

Will the UK be able to maintain its empire, if not how will it collapse (I doubt it will be without bloodshed)?

I doubt the UK would collapse, while they will have difficulties the empire collapsing is unlikely, if anyone's empire is going to collapse it's probably the French.

How will American-Japanese relations evolve, is a war likely?

The Japanese would be much less nationalistic without the Wall Street Crash, meaning they will be much less of a threat and if the Whites win in the RCW there wouldn't be support for the Kuomintang -> China doesn't unify -> Japan doesn't fully invade China and continues to supply certain cliques->Japan doesn't have to invade European colonies to continue its war effort.

If not against the United States, will Japan turn its expansionist views against the British Empire?

Very unlikely as they are less nationalistic and the reason they fought the US wasn't for its empire, it was because it was the only power that was significantly involved in the areas Japan cares about.

Could communism last for decades in a surrounded and weakened Russia?

Yes, they would be weaker than OTL but unfortunately states like Stalin's don't collapse.

What if a new Russian civil war broke out?

Impossible, once the Whites are wiped out in the RCW there is no one that will support a White return. If you mean like a Civil War between the Bolsheviks and some other movement, it's unlikely since a paranoid and totalitarian state like the USSR is very good at destroying separatist movements and indeed any movement who isn't under their control.

How will the decolonization process take place? Bloodier? With negotiated agreements like OTL?

Postponed by a lot and much more bloody since there is no one that pressures you to give up once independence movements start to rise but that will take a much longer time.

What if the United States decided to become expansionist and follow the German path in trying to compete with the British Empire to become a recognized superpower?

It was WW2 that brought the US out of isolationism, if they lose WW1 they would be more isolationist not less.

 

[Parma]

I think most CP victory scenarios are way too optimistic.

Agree, what a lot of CP victory scenario's forget, are socio-economic situations. The fact that all parties will be in financial ruins. especially Germany due to the way they funded their war economy, basicly printing of new money. This will have a major repercussio after the war.
Liberties will defenitly increase, since a whole generation of young men was sent to the meat grinder, and miljons of young women were forced to work in the factories, this will defenitly have its effects on society.

 

[Kronistry]

The first will be the Third Republic under an even more unstable succession of governments, the second could still create fascism.

What the Ottomans held pre-WW1 was the most stable part of their empire, the Balkans were the most unstable part of the empire and even they had frequently to rely on outside help to liberate themselves, Armenians and Lebanese won't be able to seriously threaten Ottoman rule.

I doubt the UK would collapse, while they will have difficulties the empire collapsing is unlikely, if anyone's empire is going to collapse it's probably the French.

The Japanese would be much less nationalistic without the Wall Street Crash, meaning they will be much less of a threat and if the Whites win in the RCW there wouldn't be support for the Kuomintang -> China doesn't unify -> Japan doesn't fully invade China and continues to supply certain cliques->Japan doesn't have to invade European colonies to continue its war effort.

Very unlikely as they are less nationalistic and the reason they fought the US wasn't for its empire, it was because it was the only power that was significantly involved in the areas Japan cares about.

Yes, they would be weaker than OTL but unfortunately states like Stalin's don't collapse.

Impossible, once the Whites are wiped out in the RCW there is no one that will support a White return. If you mean like a Civil War between the Bolsheviks and some other movement, it's unlikely since a paranoid and totalitarian state like the USSR is very good at destroying separatist movements and indeed any movement who isn't under their control.

Postponed by a lot and much more bloody since there is no one that pressures you to give up once independence movements start to rise but that will take a much longer time.

It was WW2 that brought the US out of isolationism, if they lose WW1 they would be more isolationist not less.

You have some interesting points here. Of course, I was just trying to inspire new, original ideas by asking these questions. However, I could well have seen the USSR collapsing like OTL or descending into civil war ITTL during the 1970s, well after Stalin's death and at a time when the economy was stagnating. I agree with you on Japan, but it could still decide to compete with the West by propagandizing against European colonization and calling for Asian development (much like what Nasser's Egypt and Gaddafi's Libya did in the Arab world) without entering into direct conflict but rather by using diplomatic and economic pressure. I agree with you on decolonization, the process would be bloodier and longer. A crumbling French colonial empire could be a realistic and interesting scenario, and the British might be forced to grant independence to some of their colonies (there would be unrest in India and in the Middle East as well).
I think you underestimate the US. They had lost the war, but they now faced two “threats” (Germany and the USSR) which could be used by propaganda to justify expansionism. Before World War I, the US increasingly wanted to be recognized as a superpower. Their defeat against the German Empire could boost their imperialism in a world that could be seen as increasingly at odds with their ideals (again, this could be used for propaganda). OTL, American nationalism was appeased by its "easy" victory (from the American perspective of the war) and returned to isolationism. ITTL, the opposite could happen (especially if struggling France and the UK can't repay their loans to the US).

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

However, I could well have seen the USSR collapsing like OTL or descending into civil war ITTL during the 1970s, well after Stalin's death and at a time when the economy was stagnating.

Possible but unlikely, that was in the context of the Cold War, different politics would mean different leaders who are not unlikely to make better decisions than Khrushchev and Brezhnev did.

I think you underestimate the US. They had lost the war, but they now faced two “threats” (Germany and the USSR) which could be used by propaganda to justify expansionism.

Depends on what TL you're talking about OTL Brest-Litovsk or a milder version of it. In both cases however the USSR wouldn't be seen as such a threat, it wasn't until WW2.

Before World War I, the US increasingly wanted to be recognized as a superpower. Their defeat against the German Empire could boost their imperialism in a world that could be seen as increasingly at odds with their ideals (again, this could be used for propaganda).

US imperialism was quite weakened after the Philippines and how are the Germans at odd with US ideals?

OTL, American nationalism was appeased by its "easy" victory (from the American perspective of the war) and returned to isolationism. ITTL, the opposite could happen (especially if struggling France and the UK can't repay their loans to the US).

Actually war weariness due to the losses in WW1 was one of the reasons of isolationism, here they would suffer more -> more isolationist and after WW1 the US returned to its isolationism pre-WW1.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I can't see UK and France being interested in cleaning up the Ottoman's mess when they have more important things to think about at home. So can't see French or British gains in the Levant but can see them supporting Arab insurgents to destabilise the Turks.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

I can't see UK and France being interested in cleaning up the Ottoman's mess when they have more important things to think about at home. So can't see French or British gains in the Levant but can see them supporting Arab insurgents to destabilise the Turks.

They already conquered much of the Middle-East, retreating doesn't make sense and it would be a good morale boost.

 

[Derek Pullem]

They already conquered much of the Middle-East, retreating doesn't make sense and it would be a good morale boost.

This would be keeping a large number of troops guarding worthless pieces of sand whilst their capitals are suffering alt-Spartacist style rioting??

 

[extraterrestris]

This is probbaly the largest butterfly. Under the milions of men and women there would be most likely some one who eiter invent or discover things whihc would speed up development in technology, biology or medicin and of course among the deaths there would be individuals who contribute the to increase wellfare by their entrepeneur ship.

This is a rather important point. Without WWII there would be less pressure to develop some technologies such as nuclear technology, rocketry and jet engines, but this would be (partly or completely?) offset by there being more scientists and engineers around post-1945. European countries would have much bigger populations without the Holocaust and WWII. There would not just be more scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs but also more workers, customers and parents. Total GDPs would be higher, consequently, total tax revenues would also be higher. This could mean much more funding for technoscience.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

This would be keeping a large number of troops guarding worthless pieces of sand whilst their capitals are suffering alt-Spartacist style rioting??

You can't move troops immediately, if you're having a rebellion you have to be able to put it down with what you have in your capital and Spartacist uprising happened once soldiers started to be demobilized not at the moment of surrender.

 

[Derek Pullem]

You can't move troops immediately, if you're having a rebellion you have to be able to put it down with what you have in your capital and Spartacist uprising happened once soldiers started to be demobilized not at the moment of surrender.

So keep the conscripts sweating away in Palestine surrounded by Arabs expecting them to hand over the country. And unlike OTL there is no "victory" to celebrate only debt and defeat.

In that context what is another worthless colony with a rebellious population of Arabs who have been screwed over by the peace deal going to do for morale?

Better to trade it for concessions elsewhere (keeping Cyprus / Malta / Gibraltar from CP control and keeping Egypt in UK orbit)

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

Economic failure, let alone mere stagnation, rarely leads to the collapse of countries. Economic factors certainly contribute, but if people are willing to endure four years of total war with all the economic hardship that entails in addition to the deaths of millions of people, I don't think any regime is going to collapse just because they get some bad quarterly reports.

As for decolonization, I highly doubt it would be delayed more than a decade.

This is a rather important point. Without WWII there would be less pressure to develop some technologies such as nuclear technology, rocketry and jet engines, but this would be (partly or completely?) offset by there being more scientists and engineers around post-1945. European countries would have much bigger populations without the Holocaust and WWII. There would not just be more scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs but also more workers, customers and parents. Total GDPs would be higher, consequently, total tax revenues would also be higher. This could mean much more funding for technoscience.

I agree with this. In fact, without the hyper focus the war put on the production of propeller planes and the massive surplus it generated, jet engines might advance a little faster, or at least become widely available earlier. Without the focus on the atomic bomb, nuclear science is used to build nuclear reactors for civilian and military uses, and since they wouldn't have been designed to produce fissile material for bombs, reactors would be optimized for power generation, making them safer. Rockets might be delayed though, I'll grant that.

Possible but unlikely, that was in the context of the Cold War, different politics would mean different leaders who are not unlikely to make better decisions than Khrushchev and Brezhnev did.

This is also my thoughts. Without a generation of reformers killed off by World War II and the devastation of said war, the USSR would be in much better shape. That's even assuming Stalin comes to power in a CP victory.

Agree, what a lot of CP victory scenrario's forget are socio-economic situations. The all parties will be in finacial ruins. especially Germany due to the way they funded thier war economy, basicly printing of new monney. This will have a major reporcusssion after the war.
Liberties will defenitly increase, since a whole generation of young men was sent to the meat grinder, and milions of young women were forched to work in the factories, this will defenitly have its effects on society.

I don't think anyone's arguing that a Central Powers victory would be perfect. I just think that any world that avoids one or both of the world wars is likely to be better than ours. OTL's Entente victory could have led to a better world as well.

 

[Kronistry]

Depends on what TL you're talking about OTL Brest-Litovsk or a milder version of it. In both cases however the USSR wouldn't be seen as such a threat, it wasn't until WW2.

The Red Scare happened OTL in 1919, when the Russian civil war was still going on. It could get worse ITTL and have political repercussions (with a milder Brest-litovsk treaty).

US imperialism was quite weakened after the Philippines and how are the Germans at odd with US ideals?

For more than a year, American propaganda constantly repeated that the German Empire was an imperialist, militarist and autocratic power. If the United States had lost, the population would have retained this representation, and this could also have influenced the leaders' representation of Germany (you know the "believing in your own propaganda" thing that OTL happened to the Americans during the cold war).

Actually war weariness due to the losses in WW1 was one of the reasons of isolationism, here they would suffer more -> more isolationist and after WW1 the US returned to its isolationism pre-WW1.

The feeling of war weariness appeared OTL because the Americans had won and there was no longer a threat. ITTL, they lost and humiliation takes over war weariness. Of course, I'm talking about leaders, it changes very little for the population. It's a bit the same thing with Germany (OTL, they want to get their glory back, ITTL, they just want to guarantee their winnings) except the Americans are way more moderate and their defeat wasn't a complete catastrophy. Yet, it is IMO still enough to discredit isolationnism (and don't forget that ITTL France and the UK would surely not be able to pay back their loans to the US).

 

[extraterrestris]

They won't, for one Russia won't go to war with Germany anytime soon since thanks to WW1 it's obvious that they're nowhere near ready to oppose it, for two Britain wouldn't supply Russia, it would be a direct provocation to Germany and Britain doesn't want to get involved into European conflicts anymore and for three Germany wouldn't declare war if Britain only gives weapons, they would have do something more provocative to make it worth it since the effects of having to fight the British on top of Russia.

You seem to assume that everyone would be very dovish after WWI. This is reasonable given the bad experiences with the last war. There is another side to the story though.

Let's view this from a game-theoretic view point. Let's consider international crises / moves as a game where each of the two players has two options: be a hawk, or be a dove. This simplifies a lot to show a mechanism that would apply ITTL.

If Player A is a dove and Player B is also a dove, nothing happens. +-0 points for both players.

If both players are hawks, war happens. -200 points for both players.

If Player A is a hawk, while Player B is a dove, Player A can use the (implicit) threat of war to force generous political concessions. This would mean +70 points for Player A and -20 points for Player B. If Player A backs off while Player B is hawkish, Player B gets +70, while Player A gets -20 points.

The optimal outcome for each player is to be a hawk among doves. War is something everyone has eminently good reasons to avoid.

If some players are manifestly extremely risk-averse this would incentivize others to be more brazen in their foreign policy towards, assuming their opponents will back off. Everyone being extremely dovish is not a stable equilibrium.

Making an alliance would be something very provocative, if you're not going for round two then just build ties with them without formally allying yourself.

I don't think this is how it works, NATO and the Warsaw Pact (did) exist despite no actual war. The potentiality of war is enough.