Would a Central Powers victory have been better in the long run?

>German Empire
>Siding with Communist Russia
many keks were had

eh France is just not as resource laden as Germany. I wouldn't doubt deep resentment and a reversion to extreme nationalism in a defeated postwar France, but I dont think they would be able to cause nearly the ruckus Germany did.

For one, anti-semitism fueled far-right nationalism wouldn't had been so rampant.

I doubt Austria-Hungary would've collapsed, since the independence movements of the minorities were backed by France. Without their support, Vienna could've kept the empire together.

All in all, economically Europe would be more stable, with Eastern Europe being able to catch up to the west potentially.

central and eastern Europe would dominate the west. France today would have economy more resembling Spain. the UK would've experienced its malaise like 50 years earlier. I dont know what would've happened to the low countries, the Germans were quite upset at the onset of the war for the Belgians resistance but I think they had mostly forgotten about it after the war proved to just be that brutal by its own nature.

Belgium and the Netherlands could've probably held unto their colonies in Africa and Indonesia. They weren't jeopardizing German interests. As for the UK, without their naval supremacy and potential loss of colonies, I imagine it would be more like post ww2.

Germany would've suddenly found itself with a whole bunch of colonies just before it became clear that having a bunch of colonies would no longer be sustainable for European powers.

>How is Germany seriously going to disrupt the American economy in that era?

perhaps not a serious disruption, but fucking around in Latin America would hurt the US

Oh yeah, Germany was fucking around with Mexico, wasn't it, planning a southern invasion?

Whatever makes you think Britain would lose its naval supremacy? German victory in Europe or not, they still can't touch Britain out in the ocean.

As someone living in one of the former Central Powers, no. It was a shit alliance that we shouldn't have been in.

>allied with the t*rks that had enslaved us for centuries
>allied with two Germans that would inevitably cause a big war because of their autism

Should've sat on the sidelines and taken potshots at Serbia and Greece, would've reclaimed our land easier that way especially considering Germs didn't do jack shit to help out in this front.

>he thinks Anglo would've allowed Germany to take any colonies

Kaiserreich isn't a realistic scenario, more than likely Britain would've just seized French Africa and then handed them back to the French (unlikely) after some sort of treaty was signed.

fpep

> reclaimed our land

Tell me more about the seafaring Bugarians

No.
You know what would be much better?
Germs not chimping at all.
or Central Powers getting utterly crushed in first year(or two).
>no Germany
>no commies
>no 2nd WW
The only mistake allies make was not dismantling Germany after they won and not crushing commies in Russia.

I think so.
The Ottomans and Austria would be strengthened.
A stronger Ottoman Empire would help stabilize the Middle East.
A stronger Austrian Empire would keep its monarchy.
A victorious German Empire would be able to control the excesses of Weimar era Berlin and crush the socialists and nazis.
France maybe would get monarchy back.

So, that would mean:
A more stable middle east - good
No commies in central europe - good
No cultural marxism - good
Nazis would never get power - good
No WW2 and No Holocaust - good

Our main goal was Macedonia, but in doing so we lost our access to the Aegean Sea to Greece. Literally if our government didn't chimp out and join an obviously losing side, we wouldn't have endured self-induced national tragedy after tragedy. In WW2, we didn't have much of a choice since the Germs were on the border and would've invaded, but joining WW1 was a big fucking mistake seeing as we actually had a choice there.

Russian Revolution was inevitable, and Russian people wouldn't have accepted foreign rule, it's why they backed the Bolsheviks when everyone else ran for help to the West. Not interfering in that whole debacle would've been your best option, and would've bred less resentment towards the West.

>Ottoman Empire
>Austrian Empire
>bringers of stability

give me a fucking break lmao

Russian Revolution sure but not bolshewiks.
You could have republic or constitutional monarchy.
Also if Russia and Allies win war early Tzar would not be toppled.
And if war not happen at all Russia would modernize.

Bolsheviks aren't as bad as Cold War propaganda would have you believe (and I'm not even a tankie, it's just that they're demonized by /pol/fags more than necessary), seeing as I'm someone who's been in a communist state brought forth by their help, I'd probably know better than someone who's experience with communism is the gay transgender antifa members.

But if you don't want Bolsheviks, the best thing you could do is not interfere at all. Bolsheviks rallied people to their side specifically because the other factions looked for outside help while the Bolsheviks relied on native Russians only. Without foreign interference, it's likely Bolsheviks would've fallen to someone more moderate, might've gotten some sort of conservative yet socially-minded republic.

R8

what land you fucking faggot?
you are all invaders

Mate fuck your Bugaria. You need to go back steppenigger.

Only with hind sight but it probably would have led to a host of european nationalist terrorist organizations rising up. In any case every timeline has people going back and thinking "if only so and so had won/lost".

They all have problems and think other timelines are better.

>Serbia exists
0/10

Serbia still exists?

t. urk
t. greek

kys either way

Nice start, I'll admit, but Belarus, Ukraine, Austria, Germany and Ottomans need to not exist, preferably.

>Bolsheviks aren't as bad as Cold War propaganda would have you believe

An interesting question, what would Bulgaria have gotten had it joined the Entente? I imagine Greece would chimp out historically if Constantinople or the surrounding area was in play. The only other option would be for Serbia to cede Macedonia, which I imagine they would be willing to do in exchange for Bulgarian help and some pressure from Britain and France.

The Serb, Greek and Romanian governments all refused to give any land to Bulgaria in return for an alliance.

Germany being "#1" is a meme created to explain their ability to beat the Entente for so long.

By 1890 at least the USA had a bigger GDP than all of the British Empire, likely earlier.

The US had literally a 33% higher per capita GDP than Germany in 1914 and had a younger population and far faster population growth than any other great power.

They were already way ahead.

We should've offered joining for exactly that, yes. The straits including Constantinople should've been given to either Russia or turned into some international zone. Only way to avert a chimpout, best option would be the international zone to prevent a future Russia vs UK war though.

Meanwhile Greece can have been compensated with some Greek-populated land in Anatolia (it still existed at the time, at the coasts) in exchange for accepting our access to the Aegean Sea. With borders like that, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece would MOSTLY be satisfied with their lot, though here in the Balkans you never really know.

This was also a problem, yeah, but we should've just waited and picked on exhausted Serbia when nobody was looking. It's a smarter thing to do than rush into a World War that's like a confirmed 100% loss from the very start.

>Germany
>Austria-Hungary
>Ottomans
>Bulgaria

vs

>the entire world

>Attacking a country which suddenly has 3 times your population while its globe spanning allies still have forces in the region
Because the second Balkan war was such a success, right?

you are named after a turkic tribe, you speak a slavic language and your culture is slavic-turkic

Get The Fuck Out

>Bolsheviks rallied people to their side specifically because the other factions looked for outside help while the Bolsheviks relied on native Russians only.

Yeah because its not like Germany was supporting the Bolsheviks in order to destabilize Russia.

The British were extremely nervous about the German Navy throughout the war. The gap was as great as you think.

Eventually Germs would've lost and chimped out even without us being in their war, during the Great Chimpout we'd just strike as a neutral side. Plus I said when nobody was looking, that could be the year after, could be some time the next decade when new alliances have formed.

no

Only thing Germany did was not arrest them when they were going through German-occupied Russian territory. I didn't know that counted as support.

>Only thing Germany did was not arrest them when they were going through German-occupied Russian territory.

There was a lot of financial support in the early days as well. Besides that, there was a lot of indirect (and sometimes direct) cooperation. Read "The Russian Revolution: A New History" by Sean McMeekin. The Bolsheviks certainly received more foreign (primarily German) support than any of the other leftist factions.

Yes, but did German forces directly fight besides Bolshevik ones? Did they OBVIOUSLY give support? Public perception is what matters.

>Speculating about what would've happened to communism and Russia

>Not mentionning the fucking Brest-Litovsk treaty

It basically was an even worser Russian version of the Treaty of Versailles.

yeah, they are much worse
>so a other side

At one point, the Bolsheviks literally ordered that Russians involved in resisting German troops would be executed. They did this because Germany was threatening to withdraw support if the Bolsheviks didn't help crack down on the anti-German leftist factions. This isn't to say that the relationship was always peachy, but there was a clear German-Bolshevik partnership during 1917-1918. After 1918, it is correct to say that the Bolsheviks were no longer receiving foreign support because their primary benefactor had been defeated.

And there is the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which every single non-Bolshevik faction, left or right, was completely against, because it essentially amounted to letting Germany dismantle Russia.

I'm not denying any of this, I'm saying that the Bolsheviks managed to rally a lot of support during the Civil War because they (officially) relied solely and only on ethnic Russians, didn't go whore themselves out to Western elites to be restored and sell out the country, like what regular Russians saw the Whites as doing.

Actually pretty good, but I think

>Belgium would be occupied after how much of a headache it was for Germany
>Frange should have lost Algeria
>Poland should be split between Germany and AH
>Austria would have absorbed Serbia
>Britain wouldn't have lost Ulster. As long as the Royal Navy exists, there's no way for the CP to enforce territorial concessions on the British Isles

Overall 8/10

>Whatever makes you think Britain would lose its naval supremacy?

Remember that Germany was literally banned from producing warships during most of the Interbellum period. That obviously wouldn't happen in a Central Powers Victory scenario. Germany would continue to build up their own navy until they obtain tonnage parity with Great Britain. A victorious Germany would also have taken control of Belgium (puppet state, not direct annexation) which would have given them access to Belgian ports. Having immediate access to those ports would make Germany more difficult to contain in a theoretical future conflict.

Germany gave up trying to match British naval power even before the war started. That's unlikely to change in any vaguely plausible German victory in WWI.

Kaiserreich is a good look at what would have happened

the world would probably be a better place. Because liberal democracy would never spread and monarchy would be the dominant system.

If the entente lost the war it's highly unrealistic that they don't fall to revolutions themselves. At the minimal France. Overall the UK would be stuck in a depressed destabilized state that would never be able to hope to match German naval production after the war. Biggest predictors of revolution is losing a major war.

>Nazis would never get power- good
What did he mean by this

You make good points

>Germany gave up trying to match British naval power even before the war started.

If anything, the experience of being blockaded would make the German public more supportive of naval expansion programs. I can easily see "never again, never another blockade" being turned into some kind of patriotic rallying cry. And France has to be included in this as well. The French navy was a great help in maintaining the blockade of the central powers during the war. If Germany wins WW1, then it is safe to say that the French navy would be severely curtailed. Germany would probably force France to disarm and pay heavy reparations in any kind of peace agreement.

The Revolutions wouldn't necessarily be a home, either. I can easily see Britain's vast colonial empire suddenly being much harder to maintain. Aside from that, Germany might take possession of French colonies.

>independent transcaucasia
Have you met t*rks?

A lot of it would depend how Germany won the war. If they win at the Marne, encircle Paris, broker a peace and end the war in just over a month it would be much different than them winning in 1917/18 after years of bloody fighting.

The UK would likely keep its empire and just be forced to pay reparations for Mons and lose what was left of their continental influence (basically Belgium). There were only 5 or 6 British divisions in France at the time, the Germans could easily have decided they did the bare minimum (which is true) and only joined the war out of obligation.

France even would've been mostly fine. The issue of the Alsace would be put to rest, some colonies would change hands (doubtful that Algeria would though) and they'd lose their Belgian buffer.

I dont think anyone would've been butthurt about it to this day either. I seriously doubt it would even be called a "World War" the way it is now, instead it'd be seen as a Russian/Austrian conflict that the Germans involved themselves in after a brief skirmish in Western Europe. It would have no more notoriety than Crimea or the war in 1871.

>the world would probably be a better place

In many ways the Kaiserreich universe is actually far worse though. The monarchic institution is still strong but with none of the nice democratic moderation of constitutional monarchies, so much of Europe is run by aristocratic Junckers and puppet elites. The colonies are far more brutal. The world economy is absolutely shit compared to our timeline because America never had a chance to get invested in the rest of the world, the former Entente is near bankrupt, the Syndicalists are embargoed by everyone and everything else has a German strangehold over it. The world would be a much poorer place. China is in chaos, even moreso than in our timeline, not to mention India being divided into several warring states with hundreds of millions of people at odds with each other. A shit load of countries that managed to seize their independence are falling apart in civil wars and crises, and Russia is an absolute state twenty years later.

The revolutions would most likely be at home and in the colonies too. You had massive trade unions that made a lot of sacrifices in exchange for promises of victory. After the loss of the war, you'd have an exhausted society with soldiers returning home with absolutely no prospects. If the British kept fighting in the colonies/middle east after the fall of France it would only exacerbate the crisis. Eventually things would get so bad in terms of consumer goods and revolutionary fervor that a flash point would be inevitable. It's theoretically possible that loyalist elements in the British military may prove possible of fighting a civil war to maintain control in the face of this, a reverse of the freikorps. But in France the conclusion would almost be completely foregone, the military would almost certainly turn against the government and make common cause with radical left wing political movements. Plus the Germans would be encouraging both of these in order to further weaken the entente.

That's far better, "democratic moderation" only leads to degeneration of society's social cohesion and moral virtue. Liberals continually push and push for social reform, some legitimate, some not. By denying them a voice you ensure that the hierarchy that created stability and prosperity in Europe persists for centuries after. The world economy is slightly worse, but Europe is a lot better off and Germany is quickly rising to the place of superpower. Essentially this timeline creates the conditions for European dominance of the World, which is obviously better than the American/Russian dominance which we saw with the cold war. Eventually Germany would prevail and probably colonize space on a much faster pace than what we have now.

The USA was already the world's strongest economy by 1914 and already at the point where it could have the strongest merchant fleet, navy and land army in the world by simply deciding so.

It depends on how Germany wins. If Germany somehow wins after the Americans joined the war against them (hard to see how this would be possible) then they now have made a serious adversary of the world's strongest nation and set up an identical war down the line. If its a quick victory the US and Germany probably lean on massive German diaspora as a cause for friendship between the two nations and they go on as bickering but ultimately loyal friends (good example would be postwar French/American relations).

Its impossible to see a world where the United States is not the world's dominant superpower if you only start diverging into "what ifs" as late as 1914.

While I don't doubt a Napoleon 2.0 would try to flex his balls, France as a state didn't have the resources to come back at a Germany that wasn't hamstrung following the great war. Even if the west ultimately fizzled out into some sort of status quo ante, Germany would still be greatly enriched by the results of Brest Livtosk. Further, Frances primary continental ally, Russia, would be an unstable agrarian rump, with much of its industrial capacity firmly in the Mittleeuropa camp.

Yes.

Even if Germany could some how turn Mexico into a fully industrialized puppet state, which military advisors and Krupp factories in every city, they still wouldn't have been a meaningful threat to the territorial integrity of the united States

I can't really see the British government "falling." The democratic process acts as a pressure valve to prevent that kind of thing from happening. But they would struggle to maintain their colonial empire; many colonies would be declaring independence, and other colonies might be absorbed by Germany.

>If Germany somehow wins after the Americans joined the war against them

That doesn't seem possible. Even without American involvement, Germany in 1918 was in a very bad spot and I'm not sure they could have won even in a scenario where America never enters the war. However, it does seem likely that without American intervention, the war would continue into 1919.

Kaiserreich isn't a realistic scenario. The British Empire is literally untouchable from the Germans. They can safely seize the French colonies as well, and Germs wouldn't be able to do shit about it. Germany, at most, can enforce territorial concessions on the continent, and even then the UK can just refuse to sign any peace treaty and keep up an embargo. A lost WW1 for the Entente would look more like the various Coalition Wars against Napoleon, Brits aren't just going to give up because France fell. They have no reason to do so.

All these Germanwank alternate history scenarios assume everyone magically collapses or sits on their ass ignoring Germany expanding in their backyard. Makes zero sense.

>Be British person
>be born 1914
>die with 80 while the embargo is still going

Britain's got resources from the entire world, if anything a scenario in which there's a constant continental occupied Europe vs Britain, the Empire would actually get closer. Meanwhile Germany would be dealing with local rebellions from France if they manage to fully defeat it and still have troops to occupy it, as well as a resurgent Russia, Red or White, which would be getting its shit together.

No way. By the 1900's the UK was not capable of making much of a difference on the continent without a close Allied relative or support for the USA. Germany winning WW1 would at the very least strip the UK of all continental influence. The channel is two-way street...it may insulate London from direct German land attack but it also prohibits the British from getting a foothold on the continent without friendly ports.

I dont think Germany would be particularly interested in stripping the British of their empire anyways. And if it meant being friendly with a victorious Germany the British would probably avoid interfering with any colonial concessions from the French.

I'm not saying it could attack Germany, I'm just saying it wouldn't 'recognise' it's dominance, it would embargo and it would likely take all German colonies. While Germany would dominate on the continent, what, exactly, would stop Britain from just taking all German and French colonies and say, propping up a Free France type regime in Algeria?

France would be independent if Germany won WW1. The Germans just wanted to affirm their possession of the Alsace and take more territory to form a bulwark against French ideas about retaking it. France would be free, it would just be weak.