Central powers win WW1. Good or bad?

I wonder how long Germany could last with both France and Russia collapsed. It interesting because the war would become cheaper for the Brits if they refused to negotiate. Also, the blockade would still be active and The Ottoman empire is definitely to far gone to be saved by anything other than a massibe diversion of resources.

Germany would be trying their hardest to exploit Russian territories for resources. The trouble is that they would now have to police a vast region that's also fractious as hell. Interesting side note is that one of Germany's biggest supporters in the brief existence of the Eastern client states were the local Jewish population, who saw the Germans as a way to escape Russian oppression. So they have some support in the region, but this is an area that saw a prolonged and brutal series of wars immediately following WW1, so it's unlikely to stay passive under German control, which reduces the amount of exploitation that might occur.

France would presumably be paying reparations just like Germany did under Versailles, but the likely political unrest combined with Britain and America still being in the fight would very likely mean that France would stall as much as they could on paying anything. With the threat of German forces still on their borders, since Belgium would have been annexed, they would still be handing over some materiel, just probably not as much as the Germans would want.

The biggest problem for the Germans continues to be that Turkey and Austria Hungry are just gigantic albatrosses around Germany's neck. Neither can really do shit without Germany showing up to help, and France collapsing isn't going to stop the Mesopotamian or Italian campaigns, both of which end in defeat for the Central Powers. Germany would be trying to put out fires everywhere

Depends on the way the Central powers won.

>huge ill-feelings
I mean yeah Germans wouldn't be happy with not being able to touch Britain itself, and Britian I guess wouldn't like losing the war. But seeing as it's a 1917 victory scenario, wouldn't both sides have emerged with homelands pretty untouched (aside from the pretty pathetic ww1 bombing)? As far as wars go, they don't have too much to feel hugely ill about.

That makes no sense, if the Germans win but oppose the Bolsheviks then chances are the Jewish population in general would oppose the Germans seeing how so many viewed the revolution as a shift towards power for themselves, and rightly so.

>As far as wars go, they don't have too much to feel hugely ill about.

It's not purely about damage to homelands. Britain had been seeing Germany as a growing threat for some time, ever since Germany started building a fleet to rival Britain's (yeah, how could THAT piss the British off). On top of that, you have extreme levels of propaganda being put out that show the Germans as brutal animals, combined with both real and exaggerated stories of atrocities committed by the German armies.

From the German perspective, there was a tremendous sense of national betrayal about Britain coming into the war. War with France was one thing; they were the traditional enemy and it was expected that they would fight. But Britain was seen as voluntarily joining the war; the Kaiser railed at the start of the war, when presented with the British ultimatum to withdraw from Belgium, that the treaty Britain was invoking was just a piece of paper that Britain could choose to ignore if they wanted to. But they were making a choice to get involved, and the Germans themselves, especially after they fail to take Paris in 1914, increasingly see Britain as their biggest enemy and the one's most responsible for them losing the war.

So there would certainly be a feeling on both sides, if things ended in just a white peace, that there was unfinished business to be concluded.

I think a collapse off the french also spells soon for the Italian front. The Germans were already sending troops to Italy. With no more fronts left I imagine they would be able to send more even when accounting for occupations.

I simply brought up the Jewish example to show that there was some support in the Germany client states for Germany. Now, the extent to which that would have lasted is anyone's guess. It's important to note that the Bolsheviks were by no means universally popular; they gained control of Russia by military conquest, not popular uprising. They're the ones who sign Brest-Litovsk too, so the people in those client states would likely already feel pretty abandoned by the Bolsheviks in the first place. Now, the Bolsheviks get to tear up Brest-Litovsk later on in the real timeline because Germany collapses, but if Germany doesn't collapse they're going to find support even more difficult.

Possibly. I'd imagine the Germans would still want to keep a healthy number of troops in occupied Belgium/Northern France in order to keep the French holding up their end of the treaty and to dissuade the French from opening their borders to British/American forces.

Plus, if France is closed to the Allies, then all those American troops that would be landing in France instead go to Italy. There's an expeditionary force in Salonkia that spends most of the war doing jack all, but they could be diverted to Italy or do what they did in the real timeline, which was invade into Serbia. Like I said, it's Germany putting out fires; can they send enough forces to Turkey and AH to prevent both collapsing? Maybe.

Close to this.
>Germany has cheap oil from Ottomans so with a help from their industry they could take the British role.
>All the problematic arabs are in check under one rule.
>With Germany's industrial and educational help and oil money Ottomans could modernize so when it comes to seperation of arabs they could do it better than British(british only care about oil when they split the countries.)
In the end
>World star Germany
>Good Austia
>Good Hungary
>Good-Ok Ottomans
>a bit powerless Britan
>Fairly powerless France
In reality we all know that the central powers couldn't win the war.

That's illuminating, I was focusing too much on a civilian level

>the Germans themselves, especially after they fail to take Paris in 1914, increasingly see Britain as their biggest enemy

Proofs?

Firstly, by 1917, Britain are the major players on the Western Front. It was France up until then, but by the time the disastrous Nivelle offensive is over, France is exhausted. Britain has also built up her infantry and, crucially, artillery enough to be a serious threat. So it's the British, as the war goes on, that are stopping Germany from winning the war.

But it's much deeper than that. Germany and Britain have shared cultural and political links prior to the war. Their royal families are related. Thousands of Germans live in England, and vice versa. Germany really does expect England to stay out of the war. The sense of betrayal in Germany at England entering the war can't be underestimated. They see it as England kicking Germany when she's at her most vulnerable.

This is exacerbated by both the blockade, which causes immense privations in Germany, and incidents like the Germans claiming the British are using "dum-dum" rounds, or expanding ammunition, which is banned.

Would have prevented the rise of Hitler and Nazism and as such white nationalism wouldn't be so frowned, so yeah definitely good in the long run.

Good. No Second World War

Well there was no chance of it ever happening in the first place so neither good or bad.

Not a utopia by any means, but you probably avert the worst horrors of the 20th century. A revanchist, genocidal France (akin to the Nazis) would have lacked the population or industry to take on Germany. The USSR may or may not exist but it would have been weaker without control of Eastern Europe. Autocracy and monarchy would be less discredited but Germany would have gradually moved towards democracy anyway, and the Middle East might be more stable without Sykes-Picot.

bad because then we have burgundian bordergore again

What's the context of that alternate historymap?

It would be good because it would possibly stop the eternal anglo forever but it would be bad because the roaches would get more land and the absolute monarchies would remain

>live in timeline where Central Powers win
>Veeky Forums threads about how we'd be better off if the Entente won

Good for my country specifically, but probably nothing entirely different than what happened after the Entente won.

Good because no WW2, possibly no persecution of Jews, no communism, and no Israel.

Huge European powers sounds like a great idea. Defiantly wont fail.

You do realise the central powers made peace with Communist Russia?

it's the "frogs irrevocably btfo" timeline

Of course they did. They funded them.

>the eternal kraut

In an ideal world:

>Germany incorporates Austria proper and retains Alsace-Lorraine
>Austria-Hungary ceases to exist and territories divided according to nations within it
>Belgium, Luxembourg and other meme countries are removed from the map
>Yugoslavia is created, is not communist, and Serbs and Croats cooperate on equal terms to get rid of the muslim plague
>Bulgaria incorporates Northern Macedonia but gets no Aegean access
>Ottoman Empire ceases to exist; proper Armenian state is erected, and Kurdish state
>Greece gets Cyprus, Smyrna, Constantinople and Pontus gets some kind of special status
>Pan-Arab federation is created
>Russia does not turn communist

>implying Communist Russia didn't help the central powers

Which side was Russia on during WW1?
Why did Russia drop out of the war?
When did the Bolshevik Revolution take place?

Time to get out of this board and read a book.

>Defiantly wont fail.
It won't if Perfidious Albion won't interfere.

You do realise that they were under a different rule before they became communist at which point they dropped out of the war...
1917 revolutions took place during the war so even if the Central powers won, Russia would remain communist.

>giving land and materials and cracking down on czech legion isnt helping

>implying they were assisting the communist revolution and not assisting a regime change for their advantage in war

>Kurdish state
Kill yourself. Kurds in the history of man have never had a their own self ruling entity. It's simply not supposed to be

Couldn't be worse than the clusterfuck Middle-East is now.

Honestly, a Central Powers win really just means a German win, with the AH and Ottoman Empires dissolving within a few years of Armistice no matter what

The middle east wouldn't be an extremist islamic shithole

Since France is the weaker party versus Germany having them lose again would probably stop another Franco-German war but Russia on the other hand would be out for revenge. I believe Ludendorff was going to remove the Bolsheviks from power after WW1 but whether the next government would be friendly is questionable with so much of their territory in German hands.

The germans were going to remove the Bolsheviks in 1918 with a finnish/german division but the reichstag actually did something for once and forced Ludendorff to stop. If they won ww1 presumably they would have intervened in the civil war. Source Adam Tooze Deluge

Always good if Germany wins.

United Kingdom should have the whole Normandy
Partition of France

Not really good or bad, just different. Probably would have prevented WW2 though.

What does Veeky Forums think of the Septemberprogramm?

Kaiserreich has a somewhat reasonable depiction of what it could have been like. France and Britain, defeated in an extended WW1 that lasts until 1921 suffer full blown socialist revolutions. Germany expands its sphere of influence by seizing foreign colonies, creating puppet states in eastern Europe, intervening in the Russian Civil War and setting up an East India Company style corporation in southern China. The former governments of Britain and France flee to their colonies, intending to one day reclaim their homelands.

Oh
Also russia is still around
And during the second world war russia and america get blown the fuck up by civil wars

>somewhat reasonable
>Britain ever losing ww1
WEW lad

>taking territory from Germany started ww2
>taking territory from France won't start terre guerre deux

I was once told that, if things had unfolded slightly differently in one place, Britain and Germany would have been on the same side of WW1, going up against France and Russia.

Source

>implying the Ottoman Empire finally winning doesn't make the jihad continue

>slightly differently
You know butterfly effect is a thing right

But does anybody here know what it was? Now whenever a WW1 thread comes up, I try to remember the situation that he described. It involved Africa. Bear in mind, this was a history professor, not some random kook.

>i don't know that the young turk government was secular as fuck

>Germany wins world War one, and the rest of the central powers cease existing.

Some of the biggest changes would be to colonial holdings, if England is in a position to actually lose the war unconditionally you would probably see droves of English colonies given independence beforehand to prevent Germany from being able to demand them from England.
Then you would have a cold war type similar situation between the United states and Germany, you would probably see more American assets put into the Siberian rump state to help prop it up.
The next war would probably be France invading Germany well Germany tries to prop up Austria and the ottomans, with the English in it along with the former colonies, Japan would probably be neutral or have it's stance based on its invasion of China.
The United states would definitely get involved again as a single state Europe would be a threat to it, especially if Germany takes the Netherlands as that gives them a colony in the Americas.
However central powers victory means Germany will not largely destroy it's own advances in nuclear engineering and get the first atomic bomb with the larger industrial base they could actually make long range bombers to deliver such weapons.
As for how the next war would go that is anyone's guess.

Well what happens is that

>German navy actually sallies out and wins a victory at Jutland
>breaks the British blockade
>German supply situation improves
>British get tied down in terrible campaign in the Balkans
>war drags into 1919 and the Germans penetrate near Verdun
>entire French and British force has to retreat back to Paris
>British forces risk encirclement and are evacuated
>with defeat imminent and mutinies and communist uprisings rife, France signs a separate armistice
>communist revolution breaks out there
>Britain tries fighting on into 1921 but forced through war weariness to sign the "Peace With Honor" which allows Britain to keep its empire and relative status quo so long as Germany has a free hand in Europe
>within a few years Britain itself suffers a communist revolution
>Germany seizes all of the good colonies like Malta, Singapore and the Suez

>Then you would have a cold war type similar situation between the United states and Germany

America even had plans to build massive battleships for this exact scenario, the "what if Germany wins the war in Europe" scenario. I wish this had happened.

FUCKING GREAT, ABSOLUTELY BEST TIMELINE

Constantinople was 70% Muslim in 1910. Fuck off Alexios.

Didn't Germany let Lenin out of prison and send him to Russia to topple the monarchy? Does that still happen in our alternate timeline?

Some ideas I think maybe could've happen would be
>France reduced seriously and is forcibly economically tied to Germany, its empire is mostly dismantled (Mittel Afrika and possibly also Algeria and Morocco are take by Germany while Tunisia is taken by Ottomans)
>Britain is mostly dismantled as a power, it maybe maintains some colonies but mostly because Germany feels it would overextend itself owning them
>Belgium is mostly annexed and Congo is taken
>Japan finds an alliance with Germany and the two cooperate as Germany wants an ally in the Far East. IndoChina and Malaysia are possibly still in the hands of Britain and France but see a change of leadership as Japan annexs them
>India becomes a puppet of Germany

Good:
>Tsar rules over a white russia with empowered Duma
>ottoman shits collapse
>Germany claims baltics, liberates finland, and small portions of belgium
>3rd French Republic returns to monarchy as originally planned
>Britian's empire doesn't collapse ala AH
>AH annexes serbia (not original plan) and Italian Libya
>Italy doesn't collapse
>US never got involved
>Ottoman Empire divided amongst all participants in war with wealthy areas given to victors and poorer areas given to loser

I honestly doubt it could have been worse. I don't think AH nor Germany had an extreme peace in mind like the Allies ended up imposing. The ottomans collapsing was bad and still is bad to this day because of how shit the Big Four drew the map.

If it was divided up and controlled similiar to the allies but not granted independance things would be better there.

Things could have went extremely bad if:

>3rd republic collapses into communism
>Russia collapses into communism
>Britian's empire falls apart similair to AH or Ottomans

Its important to keep in mind the Versailles treaty could have been anything hte victors wanted it to be.

They had an almost entirely free hand and only Attaturk told them to fuck off.

They chose a really really shitty treaty. Wilhelm II's ideal peace was good but Ludendorff's was bad.

So there is so much that could have happened depending on the Kaiser's abilities.

>I don't think AH nor Germany had an extreme peace in mind like the Allies ended up imposing
They absolutely did. Just look at Brest Litovsk, it can hardly be called a "light punishment." They initially planned to annex Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemberg, as well as chunks of France's industrial heartland in the north. Any German Victory scenario that doesn't result in France as an small, agrarian rump has to be the result of German inability to enforce their desired peace on the west. After all, the concessions gained in the east and status-quo antebellum in the west would be a clear German victory.

So you're suggesting that Germany would have absorbed Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemberg, and most of France?

Not even most of it, they would have annexed the parts near Belgium and Germany where a disproportionately large amount of the infrastructure and natural resources are.

Just the parts with all the resources necessary for heavy industry. No need to official administrator a bunch of pissed off frog farmers

Something like this? This is the "Germany somehow wins WW2" scenario.

For France yes, as for the rest that is less clear it depends on the state of the war at the time of peace.

well they certainly would of tried had they won.

The sick man of Europe that is Ottoman empire is pretty much guaranteed to die out no matter what happens, they don't have the population to sustain the armies they'd need to suppress arab, armenian, kurdish, and assyrian nationalism

>Kurdish nationalism
Kurds were pretty well integrated into the Ottoman empire, they took part in a lot of the killing of Armenians during the genocide.
>Arab nationalism
Arabs were integrated rather well too, apart from Hejaz Arabs remained loyal to the empire.
>Armenian nationalism
: (
>Assyrian nationalism
Too insignificant in numbers to be a big problem

How exactly would the frenchies instigate that?

So? That didn't stop the Greeks from trying anyways. Besides, the Muslims were an extreme minority everywhere they conquered, who cares?
By that point Constantinople was in Muslims for a relatively short amount of time compared to the rest of the cities history

>Historical figures
>good or bad
wew lad

>Kurds were pretty well integrated into the Ottoman empire, they took part in a lot of the killing of Armenians during the genocide.
And yet here they are to this day fighting the roaches for independence

>Arabs were integrated rather well too, apart from Hejaz Arabs remained loyal to the empire.
and yet they sided with the brits in ww1 and kicked your roach ass out

Willy beeing a retard and unable to maintain Bismarcks net of alliances

Honestly a lot of it depends on how quickly the war ends, especially with regards to the US and Russia

Much better or much worse depending on whether or not they win in 1914 or 1918. However, I would love to see this timeline's answer to Kaiserreich in HOI2...

Well if France had invaded Belgium there is a good chance that the brits would intervene in the conflict on Belgiums behalf but the chances of that are slim.

>monarchies
>good

>Good or bad?
Both. The German faction was the pinnacle of human civilization back then, the rest was considerable its low point.

what kind of victory? Plausible or central power wank? Because in the second case you could as well have had an allied wank and all would be good.
Plausible would be worse than IRL

>And yet here they are to this day fighting the roaches for independence
Why do you bother debating something you know nothing about?
Kurdish-Turk conflict didn't begin until 1978 years after the establishment of the republic of Turkey, it's predominately Commie groups that are currently fighting Turkey not Kurds as a whole.
>and yet they sided with the brits in ww1 and kicked your roach ass out
Again, apart from the province of Hejaz Arabs remained loyal to the Ottoman empire.
British allied Arabs numbered at around 25k while the rest of the Arab population were fighting in the Ottoman army.

>british stab in the back myth
>mosley takes power in britain exploiting the shock of defeat
>britain is the baddie in wwii

SUPPRIME ÇA!

I bet had germany knocked france out America would be compelled to join in the war sooner and take a way more active hand defeating germany. The more resourced they dedicated to the effort and the harder the struggle, the more likely Americans (and its political elite) would have taken more interest in foreign affairs of european countries, probably bringing about a proper American hegemony two decades earlier than our timeline. It would also mean it would have way more say in any peace settlement, so it could divide Europe and the Middle East how it wanted to benefit themselves and according to whatever principles prevailed from the war.

you also forgot the part where the british blockaded the whole german nation into starvation

>Yugoslavia is created, is not communist
This is what happened though. Interwar Yugo wasn't communist. The second part of your greentext didn't happen of course.

>>war drags into 1919 and the Germans penetrate near Verdun
this is when america joins desu. france and britain had debnts to pay

turks =! ottomans
idiot

The Ottomans couldn't have survived, even if they won the Weltkrieg.