ITT: Would a Central Powers win mean a better world?

Your question is totally dependent on when the win occurs and the degree to which it occurs.

A C-Powers victory in 1914 at the Marne is not the same as a C-Powers victory in 1917/18.

The world and the way the world would have turned out, would have been totally different yhings.

Panslavism was a West Slavic meme Russians didn't give a flying fuck about, they were more concerned with preserving their multi-national reactionary monarchy with a strong focus on Christianity, hence why they closely cooperated with Prussia and Austria in the Holy Alliance. Panslavism wasn't on anyone's mind in Russia other than a handful of autists until the 1880s when Germany started acting hostile towards Russia and the original plan of liberating Constantinople grew into an idea of liberating the entire Balkans and using panslavism as a pretext.

>Ruled by krauts
>Free
nice_meme.jpg

You are ruled by krauts now, slave.

>2 decrepit decaying empires
>one uppity expansionist country
>good

No. France and Britain already divvied up Africa, the middle east, and the far east. We call it a world war, but if Britain and France fell a whole lot more places would be in the shit as a result.

From what I've read of the Ottoman Empire in it's final 200 or so years, there was nothing to be done.

Falling for the 'failed empires' meme cooked up by postwar Anglo historians looking to justify the land-grabbing and dismemberment of AH and the Ottomans.

Dude, what evidence is there at all that AH and Otto weren't decaying?

All the Ottomans did from 1800+ is lose land, lose influence, get economically raped by Europe, remove reformist leaders, etc. By all rights they should have been gone in 1853.

Ah is a little more vague and debatable admittedly, but from their results in WW1 it's clear they were a paper tiger. They were a complete fucking mess.

The forces of nationalism are unstoppable and many of the changes post WW1 would still continue regardless of the out come of the war.

Certainly if Germany won in the beginning stages, where the Battle of the Marne did not occur the situation would be more advantageous to the central powers but it is very clear that Austria Hungary, Russia and the Ottomans were straw houses just waiting to blow over.

>All the Ottomans did from 1800+ is lose land, lose influence, get economically raped by Europe, remove reformist leaders, etc. By all rights they should have been gone in 1853.

So did Russia. Was Russia an irrelevant dying empire too? No, they were a major player.
Fuck, Russia lost more land in WWI than Germany ever owned, and they were still huge in WWII.
And Russia lost even MORE land in 1990, and they are still relevant today.

Better for Central Powers, worser for other countries.
/thread

>voice stupid self evident observation everyone is aware of
>pat yourself on the back and congratulate yourself for "solving" the problem

Every /thread post ever.

Austria wasn't decaying, they literally hit the golden age after the compromise.

In 1853 in the Crimean War they were relevant enough to nearly take the Ottomans out. had it not been for France and Britain they had won.

Same in 1877 Russo-Turkish war, they won.

It wasn't until the Russo-Japanese war that Russia seemed like shit. It's hard to really rank that performance just because it was a completely new era of war. It did change the world's opinions about Japan and russia though. The defeat led Russia to reform militarily.

Nah, Panslavism grew out of Russia getting outplayed in South Asia by the Brits. Germany aggravating them came after that.

Panslavism was the doctrine of Russian imperialism.

>Monarchies still going strong after slaughtering social-democrat traitors
>Democracy dead once and for all
Yes, of course. Literally anything bad about the modern world can be traced to this war that was forced upon the traditionalist monarchies of Europe.

How much territory would Germany take from the allies had it won, would it take most of which the allies had (leaving some for its allies like the ottomans) or would be considered to straining or hard to control so much land

we'd have our rightful clay and justice - it's just complete bullshit that our lackey neighbors always ganged up on us, because we are centrally positioned

they won't admit it now, but they know who they are

Are you saying they would have crossed the sea to conquer America?

>t. Magyar
Kill yourself. Federalization was the right path, but Franz Josef was an absolute idiot and went with the compromise after failing to go back to absolutism twice. The man was an absolute failure, and the A-H was an abomination. The constant bickering of the Magyar and Austrian states paralized the double monarchy, and the fact that only Magyars were recognized (coupled with their attempts to magyarize the territories they ruled over) antagonized the other peoples of the Empire and paved the way for its demise. The United States of Greater Austria would have been a positive change, but the states would have been given too much autonomy to make it functional. The compromise had doomed the Austrian Empire.
t. former subject

Possibly. Both world wars were about Germany trying to become the dominant power in Europe and they eventually succeeded peacefully. The two defeats in two world wars were just setbacks but in that regard only postponing the inevitable.

If the CP win WW1, all it means is that Germany dominates Europe sooner. So probably one less world war, more economic prosperity in Europe etc. Less democracy? Maybe, due to less American influence, although but Germany was pretty good at democratizing itself already. And Eastern Europe would probably be more democratic today. WW2 caused those countries to go commie for 40 years, setting back democratic developement. You might not like Austria-Hungary but at least they were already a limited democracy (vote was restricted to the wealthy) before WW1. It's not hard to see them democratize (and federalize) further if left to their own devices. At worst they could fall apart to several states, but at least they won't be communist dictatorships.

but muh french alt history hitler
doubtful though

In a CP victory timeline, France was rekt twice in a row by Germany, the last time when Germany was fighting a two front war. I think by that time they would learn their lesson like Germany did in our timeline and stop trying to take back Alsace-Lorraine.

If CP won, mainland Europe would be European Union v 0.5, except this time under an emperor instead of a banker, and with less immigrants.

>and with less immigrants.
doubtful, Germany would have kept the colonies. Now look how colorful the former colonial powers France, Britain, Netherlands, Belgium are.

>implying versailles didnt cause the great depression.

They became colorful after they lost the colonies though.

Raising war taxes and then forgetting to stop collecting them after the war was over, in combination with hundreds of thousands of uneducated, injured, shellshocked and unemployed young men having to be taken care of causes the great depression.

>implying the 1815 treaty of paris didn't cause the great depression

Germany -without the colonies- became colorful a LOT later. In the 80s West Germany had like 200k black people of 60 million Germans

I meant that France wasn't colorful while she had the colonies, she became colorful when she lost them.
So if Germany kept hers... so what? Its when you lose them that the newly independent states turn to shit and people start to run away.

Russia didn't lose a single territory in 1990 or 91.

Look up the September Program

>warsaw pact totally wasn't united states of russia guise
>that drunk moron totally didn't lose the best territory russia fought for

>t. former subject
You're that old?

>Was Russia an irrelevant dying empire too?

Yes.

Maybe
They definitly werent better than Allies, but if they won it means no nazi chimp out and therefore no vilification of nationalism and whiteness leading to acceptance of mass shitskin migration

The Russian Revolution would still have occurred.

Probably but Germans would send troops to stop it.

Unlikely. The Reds would have - as in our timeline - easily seized Moscow and St. Petersburg, both railway hubs, and the Whites would have been at a disadvantage since day one.

(((Russian))) revolution only happened because Lenin was a German agent.

>(((Russian))) revolution only happened because Lenin was a German agent.

You're an idiot. The Russian population had become increasingly radicalized since the reforms of Alexander II: the former serfs increasingly resented the autocratic regime due to the need for land reform, students flocked to radical anarchist or socialist groups, the urban poor were becoming fed up with their lack of protections and their inability to unionize, the Russian people in general wanted a form of parliamentary representation.

The Russian Revolution would have occurred regardless of who had won the First World War. Perhaps later, but it would have taken place.

>muh historical inevitability
Noose noose noose

No it isn't doubtful. In a victorious reich all prominent Nazis except for Göring are demobilized nobodys. Somebody with a bio as broken as Hitler would have never been a political success.

And no it wasn't only the econmic crisis. The failure in WW1 enabled the NSDAP to sharpen their profile as ultra right wing. In a victorious reich their agenda of much degeneracy would have never gained mass traction. A strasserist movement would have been much more probable (and really unlikely to be more than right wing fringe).

You wouldn't believe the shit I've seen on the Galicia front.

>Russia steamrolls Afghanistan
Doesn't even need to happen. Afghanistan was still pretty weak and in a political mess if I remember correctly. During the Great Game, Russia had a plan to convince Afghanis and Central Asians into a Jihad against India on the basis of giving riches, sort of like the Persian and Afghani sackings of Delhi in the 1700s. This would then trigger Indian Muslims to rebel as well. Essentially a second Sepoy Mutiny happens, but this time with the help and support of a outside power.

>I think by that time they would learn their lesson like Germany did in our timeline and stop trying to take back Alsace-Lorraine.

Germans got BTFO dozens of times in a row by France from the 17th to the 19th century, and it didnt prevent them from trying again (and eventually winning)

Play Kaiserreich.

Yes it would be better(pic related)

>No it isn't doubtful. In a victorious reich all prominent Nazis except for Göring are demobilized nobodys. Somebody with a bio as broken as Hitler would have never been a political success.
>And no it wasn't only the econmic crisis. The failure in WW1 enabled the NSDAP to sharpen their profile as ultra right wing. In a victorious reich their agend

What is Kaiserriech?

I wonder if America would have stayed isolationist for longer if the war had ended before they entered...

OP here.

I'm curious as to how the Ottomans would have been impacted by the growing importance of oil in the world.

If they'd have pulled through another 4-5 years they would have had sole control over a crazy percent of world reserves.

>a top 5 world power is an irrelevant dying state

~~ Just autist things ~~

>skyrocketed nazi popularity
It was more the opposite. The majority of the German population opposed the Weimar Republic and its lack of political stability. There wouldn't be a national socialist or communist movement if Wilhelm II. was still in charge.

>ottoman empire doesn't caucasus mountain range and arabia
>ottoman empire reformed into turkey
>bulgaria doesn't get northern dobrugea and the fingers peninsula in the south
>austrian empire reformed instead of just annexing the south slavs into her bulk
>that random german corsica and crete out of nowhere
>implying Britain would have lost ANYTHING from losing the war, other than prestige

No, the inevitable round 2 of the war (alternate ww2) would probably have been much bloodied and dragged out longer.

>Caucuses not giving to the ottomans
Azerbaijan probably would want to be part of the ottomans

ottomans started major reforms in 1850s and would have become fully westernized if nationalism and the ww1 hadn't decimated their empire so early

Yes.

yes

>>warsaw pact totally wasn't united states of russia guise
it most certainly was not

>Spot the idiot
All it takes is a simple shift in strategy makes France get bitch slapped worse than 1871.

The Ottoman Empire theoretically could have seen some recovery in the 1920s when they started to discover oil in the Middle East and North Africa, though that's only if they can hold on to their territories south of modern Turkey.

Kaissereich Legacy of the Weltkrieg?

They would just have to deal with more shit when they were at their most vulnerable.

no

>reading comprehension

Where is the Archduke's wife in this lovely furry comic?

turkey would get balkans and asia, not europe.

t. enver pro

I thought she was supposed to be the furry

Top 5 in what? Having more illiterate serfs than anyone else?

>top 5 world power in what

In power, you illiterate serf.

Do you have proof of your claim?

CIA says so, the russian state, whatever is called, has always been considered very powerful by the agency.

The CIA didn't exist in the 19th century

Neither did anything that you will accept as proof instead of emptily dismissing it.
I could mention that the german high command's plan was to quickly deal with France, so they can focus on the harder foe, Russia, clearly marking Russia as the main thread, but you'd just PROOFS?!! me some more. As if memes are arguments.

The Schlieffen Plan actually makes it clear that the German general staff considered France to be a bigger threat than Russia, since France was much more industrialised, better organised and had better road and rail networks.

The only category in which the Germans considered Russia superior to France was their access to natural resources; meaning that Russia could potentially fight on for longer than France. Which became a moot point anyway because Russia's hopelessly anachronistic government couldn't handle total war.

brest-litovsk was that Germany imposed on Russia was extremely harsh compared to versailles, so you can only imagine

the russian revolution LITERALLY occurred without Lenin in February 1917. The Bolshevik revolution occurred in October of that year, overthrowing the constitutional republic known as the provisional government.