[Bricktop]

What do you think would have occurred?

Ofcourse you'd have to take into account when and where major victories occurred that allowed the German's, Austrians and Turks to win..

Let's say the US, Canada, Australia and other British Colonial forces didnt take part.

A Revolution would still have taken part in Russia, but would it have continued a war against Germany if it was obvious they would lose?

Im thinking, that maybe an early offensive in 1915 into France that was successful could have won the war for Germany. There could have been diplomatic problems with Britain, but for the most part sanctions would have been enforced onto France.

This would have then led to a rise in Nationalism in France, similar to that of Germany in our world's history. I would then think that a Nazi's type leader could have rised in France, and invaded Germany in a quest for a greater Unifed Europe like under Napoleon?

Thoughts about this? What do you think could have happened?

Drummond

[fastspawn]

A French Resistance would build up i would suppose, and maybe a Pre-Vichy French Govt. However i do not see a way Britain cannot be figured in this scenario, since they were in it from Day 1. (or almost Day 1.) And sir john French was at 1st battle of Marne, so the British were with the French where the lines were drawn and the trenches dug.

Anyway, let's say British and French combined forces fail to stop the german right wing and they wheel towards Paris, as per Schlieffen. (van Moltke the lesser chose to reinforce the left and weaken the right, thereby creating the lines. He resigned in shame.)

What I feel is that accordingly, British and German would sue for peace after this short quick skirmish, with German being slight victors. I don't see how the Germans can annex the French totally. I think the French government would be pro-german, emphasising on their similarities between the two countries. However there are going to be French dissidents and resistance against this "occupation", which i doubt would have pulled much weight, if the british/allies do not help.

What is for certain however is that, Hitler as we know him could not have risen if the Germans had won. That does not rule out WWII however, but the pretext would have been different. Maybe Stalinist Russia against Western Europe?

[bradley]

there was more anti-german sentiment in France at the start of WW1 than there was for WW2

[Comrade Ogilvy]

"What If" the Central Powers won World War One?

It depends, because if the central powers wanted to conquer Moscow, and if they won, that would mean that there would have been no Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, because the Germans and Austrians and Turks would have imprisoned and executed all the bolshevik rebels, especially for their anti-monarchism. It would have also meant that Turkey would not have become a secular republic, and all of the balkans would become occupied territory at the disposal of the central powers.

[fastspawn]

would there be a general revolt in Tsarist Russia without WW1? my impression is that ww1 sped it up.

[Captain Hat]

As to the Russian Revolution, I believe WWI did speed up that process a bit. It might not have happened until the mid 1920's.

As to Germany, a defeated France may have acted in Germany's stead as the defeated power.
Anyway, Belgium would probably be annexed to Germany or at least become part of a Customs Union.
Germany would retain its colonial possessions, maybe gain one or two French colonies.
Germany would retain the Kaiser's form of government.

To sum it up, WWI would still have been a worthless conflict, with little or no gain, and the best and brightest of Europe cut down in their prime.

[fastspawn]

To sum it up, WWI would still have been a worthless conflict, with little or no gain, and the best and brightest of Europe cut down in their prime.

WWI was in itself a worthless conflict, designed to put aside a greater conflict for 30 years. Anyway, less people would have died if van Moltke had acted accordingly to the Schlieffen Plan.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

To sum it up, WWI would still have been a worthless conflict, with little or no gain, and the best and brightest of Europe cut down in their prime.

You fail to realize or learn that the German leadership during world war 1, wanted to replace the British empire in naval supremacy and hegemony n the world and hence also annex all of the colonies of the British empire, to do this they needed the resources that were abundant in Russia, and thus Germany attacked Russia at its weakest point, with the intention of swallowing it whole.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Germany didn't just attack Russia to simply seize its resources. It was a system of alliances. Germany would have prefered not to have Russia in the war to begin with.

France and Russia were close allies. Because of the competition between Germany and Britain, England was actually forced to make some concetions to France in Africa and basically join into an alliance with France.

So basically you have England and France are threatened by the rising German power.

Then you have another zone: Austria-Hungary, the Balkans, Russia, and the Ottoman empire.

There was a newly idependent country in the Balkans (Serbia) that finally broke from the evil clutches of the Ottoman empire, but was still squezed by two giant empires Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman. Serbs set out to bring the South Slavs into one country in the Balkans. Many of these South Slavs lived under territories controlled by the Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians. Serbs were natural enemies of the Turks and when they were strong enough, they declared war against Turks and re-caputured lands lost to Turks hundered of years earlier. Then sites were set to open up a sea-outlet, and here is where the giant empire to the North was a problem. Russia saw an opportunity of their own. They needed a warm-water sea-outlet and they saw Serbia (an orthodox Christian nation just like them as great ally in the Balkans). After a couple of attempts Serbia suffered some setbacks and Russia was humiliated as a result (you can google it up if interested in what happened). Serbia continued to agitate against the Austro-Hungarian empire and finally an underground terrorist group "The Black Hand" assasinated the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian empire. At this point Austria demanded that they come into Serbia and investigate this incident. The Serbs saw the demands as a violation of their soverngty and refused. Austria looked for approval from Germany to invade Serbia. Germany pretty much gave Austria a "blank-check" to do what they want.
At this point Russia looked to France and wanted to know if France will indeed back them when Russia takes their action. France also gave Russia a "blank-check" to act in a manner they see fit. After the invasion of Serbia, Russia proceded to cut diplomatic relations with Austria and Germany and started a massive troop mobilisation near the German and Austrian borders. Germany sent out several warnings to Russia but received no response, at this point, Germany declared war on Russia and in turn, their ally, the Austro-Hungarian empire declared war on Russia as well. Then France keeping with their defence-pact with Russia, declared war on Germany; and Britain keeping with their defence pact with France, declared war on Germany.

Oh yeah, then Turkey got into the war, mainly because of German promises and because they had many enemies in the Balkans and Russia.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

There was a newly idependent country in the Balkans (Serbia) that finally broke from the evil clutches of the Ottoman empire, but was still squezed by two giant empires Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman.

Don't you mean Austro-Hungarian and German rather than Ottoman?

Serbs set out to bring the South Slavs into one country in the Balkans. Many of these South Slavs lived under territories controlled by the Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians. Serbs were natural enemies of the Turks and when they were strong enough, they declared war against Turks and re-caputured lands lost to Turks hundered of years earlier.

Slavs are much more of historical racial enemies of the Germanic races of Austria-Hungarian empires and the Prussian empire, because the Slavs are named Slavs in the first place for their history as being slaves of the Germanic tribes. The word Slav is just as non-indigenous as the word Germany, because Germany actually means land of the barbarians or aliens or invaders, the actual name of Germany is Deutschland.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

There was a newly idependent country in the Balkans (Serbia) that finally broke from the evil clutches of the Ottoman empire, but was still squezed by two giant empires Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman.

Don't you mean Austro-Hungarian and German rather than Ottoman?

I meant what I said. As you can see the Balkans were occupied by the Ottoman empire, to the North is the Austro-Hungarian empire.

Slavs are much more of historical racial enemies of the Germanic races of Austria-Hungarian empires and the Prussian empire, because the Slavs are named Slavs in the first place for their history as being slaves of the Germanic tribes. The word Slav is just as non-indigenous as the word Germany, because Germany actually means land of the barbarians or aliens or invaders, the actual name of Germany is Deutschland.

At the outbreak of WWI, Turks were the enemy, you talk with some Serbs today and they still hate Turks with a passion. They also hate Germans probably for the reasons you mentioned and also because of the more recent history with Germany.

[Utopian_Anarchist]

Hitler (most likely) would have never came into power, and hence no counter-mechanisms to the aleady growing communist popularity in Germany. I say he probably wouldn't have got into power because he used the losing of the war as grounds for much of his platform. I think communist parties would have been more power with no fascist regime to oppose them and fight battles with them in the street. That's just my opinion though.

[Bricktop]

fastspawn:
Britian of course would have taken part, i meant dont count the Australians, Kiwis, Canadians and other British 'colony' nations, plus the United states into it.

ComradeChris:
Do you think there would have been such a large contingent of Communist groups in Germany if Germany had actually won WW1? There would have been no mess of Right-Wing Paramilitary Groups fighting in the streets with the Reds, but if Germany had won WW1, they wouldnt have been in so much a position for support from inside the nation for Communist groups. IMHO anyway. Although France had some Communist groups after 'winning' WW1 (you cant say France won, they were totally obliterated afterall - with help from their allies they did.) Britain didnt really have powerful Communist groups?

Drummond

[Comrade Ogilvy]

What happend on the Eastern front of Russia during world war 1? Wasn't Japan devastating the weakened Russian empire? I think if the central powers would have won, it would have also prevented the advent of the invention of the atomic bomb and subsequently the much more devastating hydrogen bomb. and the rest of the arms-race that developed as a result of the tyranny of U.S.A. and U.S.S.R which was hatched from the victory over the defeated central powers. The U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R were isolationist-oriented in their foreign policy, if the central powers would have won world war 1, it would have automatically super-sized the isolationist policies of U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. and hence thwart the apocalyptic nightmare of the "cold war" that ensued through the basis of U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. getting rejuvenated through their victory over the central powers in world war 1 to fight with much more vigor in world war 2.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

NDS, no offense, but you seem to be a little confused in both geography and history.

The eastern front in WW1 was the Russia vs (Germany and Austria -Hungary). Japan wasn't a central power in WW1. You are confusing Japanese involvement in the war. By the end of the war there was a new menace in the Russian territories called Bolshevism. After the Red coup de tat in Russia, a civil war broke out between the Whites and the Reds. Japan, Britain, France, US, Finland, all had troops in Russia in all different regions of Russia. Japan actually sent one of the larger forces to the far east of Russia.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

NDS, no offense, but you seem to be a little confused in both geography and history.

The eastern front in WW1 was the Russia vs (Germany and Austria -Hungary).

No offense, but I think you are the one confused through misinterpreting, such as you failed to recognize that my emphasis was not on phrases but on Russia's eastern front, not "the" eastern front of "WW1".

Japan wasn't a central power in WW1.

That is well-known by almost everyone here on this thread. So...?

You are confusing Japanese involvement in the war.

There does not have to be an alliance between the central powers and Japan for their to be mere reason for accepting the possibility of Japan also fighting in "world war 1", and "World war 1" was not simply about central powers versus the world, wars are not absolutely defined with such simple instructions.

By the end of the war there was a new menace in the Russian territories called Bolshevism.

It hath existed before the onslaught of world war 1.

After the Red coup de tat in Russia, a civil war broke out between the Whites and the Reds. Japan, Britain, France, US, Finland, all had troops in Russia in all different regions of Russia. Japan actually sent one of the larger forces to the far east of Russia.

ok, and your point?

[Stipe]

I essentially agree with Captain Hat. Some land would have changed hands, and importantly the economic balance of the continent would have shifted into Germany's favor with the establishment of the customs union. Altogether, the war would still have been a waste of lives for too little gain.

Slabah on Serbia and the First World War: The Serbian governments interests weren't ever really about unifying the South Slavs. What they wanted was to expand the power of Serbia, first against the Turks, and then against the Austro-Hungarian Empire through providing some support to mostly Serbian nationalist groups within Bosnia. The unification of the South Slavs into Yugoslavia was something which came more from the Croatian national movement, and had its earliest beginnings in the early 19th century Illyrian movement which sought to create a great federated state of all south slavic peoples to fend off German and Hungarian influence. The Serbian government could see the value of this movement, but it wasn't until the end of the war that it seemed to be even remotely realistic, as Austria-Hungary was simply much more powerful than Serbia, and the one time Serbia was prepared to fight Austria (over Austria's annexation of Bosnia and Hercegovina), the Russians sold Serbia out. With the assassination of Franz Ferdinand by Gavrilo Prinčip of "Mladna Bosna" (not the Black Hand, as is often written in western sources), Austria-Hungary had the excuse it needed to try to crush Serbia once and for all (which it utterly failed to do by itself during the war), and Russia, unwilling to lose face again, this time backed its ally up.

This was the catalyst that set off the the war, but it wasn't the real cause. That is more due to German Weltpolitik and their aggressive posturing everywhere when Bismark was forced from the Chancellery. The conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary could have just ended up as a Third Balkan war if German foreign policy in the years prior had remained constant in the Bismarkian system, but unfortunately it was scatterbrained and the World War resulted.

...the Slavs are named Slavs in the first place for their history as being slaves of the Germanic tribes. The word Slav is just as non-indigenous as the word Germany, because Germany actually means land of the barbarians or aliens or invaders, the actual name of Germany is Deutschland.

Actually, this is completely incorrect. The English word "slave" comes from Slav, but the word slav is the indigenous name of the slavic peoples - slavenski/slovenski narodi. The word is derived from the word for word "slovo" (which is the direct root of the names Slovenia, Slovakia etc). The word slav used to mean "intelligible" because the slavs differentiated between themselves and other tribes by their ability to comprehend their speech. This is why the slav name for Germans is derivced from "njemac" - meaning "the mute".

[Comrade Ogilvy]

...the Slavs are named Slavs in the first place for their history as being slaves of the Germanic tribes. The word Slav is just as non-indigenous as the word Germany, because Germany actually means land of the barbarians or aliens or invaders, the actual name of Germany is Deutschland.

Actually, this is completely incorrect. The English word "slave" comes from Slav, but the word slav is the indigenous name of the slavic peoples - slavenski/slovenski narodi. The word is derived from the word for word "slovo" (which is the direct root of the names Slovenia, Slovakia etc). The word slav used to mean "intelligible" because the slavs differentiated between themselves and other tribes by their ability to comprehend their speech. This is why the slav name for Germans is derivced from "njemac" - meaning "the mute".

So I am still right that the word slave and the word slav have a historical relation?

[The Immortal Goon]

1916
-Easter Rising in Ireland

-1916(ish) Germany pushes through and takes Paris (this is, I assume, the scenerio we're working with)

-Irish Revolution begins to heat up.

-As Germany is now the undisputed power on the continent and England is the only thorn in their side, Germany accepts Casement and IRB proposal; Germany and Irish forces sweep through Ireland

-US Congress is reluctant to continue in war; A large potion of the US population is Irish and German, the public appeal of defending democracy seems to be largly invalidated as France has collapsed; War against Ireland on side of the English grows to be extremly unpopulor. US pulls what limited support it had

1917
-Triumph of the Bolsheviks, Brest-Peace is signed, even more unfavorably to Russians.

-British fail to take Jeruselim from Turks due to aid from Germans. British hold on the Middle East becomes very weak.

-Stiff resistance is met in the North of Ireland by Unionist and British troops attempting to hault Irish/German advance

1918
-Canada and Austrailia begin to grow less firm in resolve

-Austria-Hungery expands, Serbia and Montenegro are annexed in.

-Wilson demands congress to allow him to send US troops in support of England; he is denied again

-German troop moral high; victory is close at hand

-Austria-Hungry takes Italy

1919
-All of Ireland has been liberated; German troops threaten to use Ireland as base of operations to stage invasion against Scotland

-Scotland erupts in to panic

-England surrenders; government to stay in place, though humiliating reperations must be paid, armed forces taken down

-Ottoman Empire controls Middle East, Austria-Hungry southern Europe, Germany most of the rest

-Soviet Russia Stabalizes, much of White support had been lost

1920
-English economy collapses

-Scotland, mirroring Irish liberation and spurred on by economic woes, begins to rebel

-Australia pushes hard to leave British Empire

-United States economy begins to collapse

-Canadian economy collapses

-Central powers enjoy profits of war, begin solidification of their grabbing

-Finland annexed in to USSR

-Eugene Victor Debs elected president of the United States

1921
-Socialist groups begin to take power in the west

-Massive
-Scotland socialist groups make valient stand against England. USSR supports revolutionaries; revolt eventually put down by English at great cost

-Scotish massacre demoralizes England further; civil unrest breaks out

-United States establishes close European ties with Soviet Union

-US, Germany, USSR all begin to throw support to various fractioning parts of decaying English Empire

-Chinese begin to openly revolt against English and German interests there

1922
-States begin to openly rebel against reforms made by Debs; Congress begins to block legeslation

-Germany and Russia begin to compete for fragmenting peices of English Empire

-England swept by nationalist ferver; a reaction to watching Empire decay

-Quebec and rest of Canada begin to grow more hostile

-Balkan national movements begin to gravitate to Soviet Union

-India erupts in to revolution; begs for Soviet support

1923
-Civil War style conflict threatens the states; people against states, states against federal government

-Quebec seeks German support; East Canada grows more nationalistic, as does England. Western Canada moves to the left, as does most of US

-India declares itself free from England, wants place in USSR

-Both Russia and Germany begin take interest in China

-Balkins erupt in to violence; Austria-Hungry and USSR both asked by different factions to intervene, Austria-Hungry does, USSR begins arming workers in Balkins

1924
-Lenin dies

-US becomes quagmired in internal politics

-England becomes quagmired between hard left and hard right

-Chinese conflict intensifies

-India accepted as part of USSR

-Austrailia declares independence from English Empire, alligns self as neutral.

--Battle lines begin to be clear: Germany or USSR--

-Canada begins to fragment

-USSR is headed by commitee, agreement between Stalin and Trotsky (at least temproarly) in light of pressing international action

-Balkins erupt in to Revolution, want to be part of Soviet Union

1925
-Germans move in to help reinforce Austria-Hungry

-Federal government in US supercedes most state power; people hail new leftist government after sacking their own state governments. South remains uncontrolled in State hands.

-Western Canada begin campeign similor to that of US

-Quebec declares self independent from Canada; part of France (which is part of Germany)

-Eastern Canada remains quite nationalistic toward England

-England erupts in to violence between nationalists and workers

-Red Army moves in to Balkans; largly supported by most of Balkans-Croatia becomes adamatly for the Austro-Hungarians

-Ottoman Empire moves to aid Austria-Hungry

-China explodes in to revolt

1926

Another war...
-------

That's ten years

You know what? This is getting really hard. It was easy to right this with the veil of history to kind of follow, but as I get further and further from how things happened, it gets harder and harder to write about how things would have been.

I think my timeline moves too fast also.

Ah well...

-TIG

[Stipe]

So I am still right that the word slave and the word slav have a historical relation?

Indeed, there is a relationship, but it isn't the case that a foreign constructed denoting name denoting "slave" was imposed over the slavs.