A (late) Central Powers Victory: Some Musings

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Oh yeah I agree with you for Ukraine but I have badly misunderstood/confused the OP's post. As for Russia, if its rulers Can industrialize and find valuable allies (US, UK), then it could rival Germany (the Russian scientists are far from being less competent than the Germans, and with enough funds they could match them) and economically, yeah Russia has huge advantages. I don't think a Big war is possible at this point, or it would be suicide for Russia if she attacks.

The problem is that the UK doesn't want to involve itself with conflicts on the continent and the US is significantly weaker without the victories in WW1 and WW2 and also wouldn't be keen on involving itself with Russia's mess, the Russians would mostly be reliant on what they can do themselves. Then there is the problem that while the Bolsheviks created a bad economy and society, their rapid modernization of Russia was essential for the upcoming WW2 of OTL (and if they win ITTL a potential war with Germany), the Whites are far from being very reform-minded and the Russian Empire would continue the kind of policies that were enacted by previous emperors, not ideal to overtake Germany.
Russia starts from a significantly worse position than Germany (like WW1 and a Civil War starting from a backwards society based primarily on agriculture) and doesn't seem to have the leadership needed to solve its problems so overtaking Germany by the 70's is optimistic to say the least.

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

To be fair both sides want to reverse Brest-Litovsk, the difference is that the Whites are using the treaty to try to discredit the Bolsheviks but neither the Whites nor the Reds are going to immediately reverse the treaty and neither of the two will accept the treaty forever. The Germans won't be happy with either of the two so I think they would support the Whites a little bit but not too much. If it's OTL treaty.
If it's a lighter peace deal then the Whites would accept the border changes and Germany would prefer not having communists (who made it clear that they are only waiting for the proletarian revolution in Germany) on their border.

True, but once the revolution doesn't come I doubt the Reds would stir up undue trouble.

OTOH there are less investments in the nuclear sector and there are much less incentives to develop such technology.

Again, nuclear physics was advancing rapidly before WWII, and there would still be plenty of investments into potentially unlimited energy.

From I've read and learnt, this is a bit of an exagerration. I'd agree with you that overall France and Germany were similiarly militaristic, but the UK was far from matching them in this field. The Brits didn't even declare mobilization in 1914 and waited two years of war to do so and the Boer War had showed that if the Royal Navy was a top priority, the land army was often neglected. They were surely as imperialistic as the Germans or the French though, but not quite as militaristic as them.

Fair enough on that. To be fair though, the reason the continental states were more militarized than Britain was because they didn't have any natural boundaries like the Channel to protect them.

I rather think that future German-Soviet relationship would depend on who leads the USSR once Lenin is dead. If this is Stalin, your scenario is the most probable: economic dependence on both sides and thus limited ideological rivalry. But if Trortsky takes over, then real conflicts could happen. Surely not direct war for the time being, but the Soviets could carry out proxy wars in China or in European colonies. Unstable and weak countries ITTL such as Spain, France or Italy could also be targets, as well as Austria-Hungary which still has pretty popular independent movements. These actions would most likely be failures but still could be enough to create a more heated German-Soviet relationship, even until the point of war if things turn really badly (a war the USSR would have nearly no chance to win, but that's another matter, as some Soviet leaders weren't always rational).

This is true. The point of the OP was mostly to point out that Germany wouldn't go on any adventures to depose the Reds after WWI.

Those two points are the most flawed IMO (even if they're pretty minors finally). First of, I can't see why people in a world with no WWII would be more liberal. Most of the sources show that Nazism played a big role in discretiding nationalism, militarism and overall conservatism (even if we could argue that Nazism was far from being conservative, but it was largely thought to be so, and this is still the case today). ITTL, only militaristic nationalism would be badly viewed by most of the world, but regular or moderate nationalism would still be a very popular ideology (even more in a CP victory scenario) and if Conservatism would be weakened (with the SPD becoming prominent in Germany) it wouldn't have received the death blow that was WWII OTL.
As for technology, WWII was essential in sppeding up research on Nuclear power, early informatics (with the first computers), and rocket technologies (ITTL, no V1 nor V2 and thus way less experimental tools to start with to make space exploration a reality).

WWII didn't discredit racism or conservatism though; just look at OTL's 1950s and 1960s in the United States. None of the main talking points of the Civil Rights movement were comparing Jim Crow to Hitler. I would argue that war generally doesn't weaken conservatism, but strengthen it. Instability and devastation create a yearning for a return to normalcy; look at Europe after the Napoleonic Wars, or the first few years of the Weimar Republic, with tons of far-right paramilitary groups running around. Look at the US after WWII or Vietnam.
As to your point about technology, WWII delayed the introduction of the television and set back European living standards by a lot; it took Europeans a lot longer to get dishwashers and radios in their houses than it did Americans. WWI set back radar development and civilian airliners.

This peace deal seems too mild for someone who lost a war, Germany gets Luxembourg and a few small colonies from the WEntente in exchange for giving up a few of its own colonies, it doesn't seem like a German victory, rather a compromised peace.
1 and 2 seem somewhat unlikely, I doubt the Germans wouldn't want a better position from which launch an offensive into France if need be.
7 Why does Germany care about Morocco? Aren't there much more important colonies that they could gain?
10 Why does Austria limit to small border changes, couldn't they get much more after a defeat like Caporetto? Wouldn't Venetia and perhaps Lombardia be a goal of the Habsburgs?
15 I get why the Germans want this but in the event of war again this is not likely to be respected so why wouldn't they get something concrete?

There might well be more annexations, you're right. But I don't expect them to, for example, annex half of Belgium and all of Lorraine.
Morocco offers Mediterranean access for them, as well as more Atlantic bases.
Austria doesn't want more restless minorities, and annexing swaths of Italy is a recepie for instability and disaster.
Germany isn't planning on another war, they want to recover and make money again. Global markets help greatly with the latter.

Also, out of curiosity, do you think the Russians would get OTL's B-L or a milder version if the US doesn't enter the war?

You mean the most ultra-nationalist government ever seen didn't fail to cause a world war? Wonder why.
It's unlikely there is something equivalent to Nazism in France, Russia or Britain, it was unlikely even IOTL Weimar Germany.

This. WWII was rather unlikely. Hell, even most Germans in 1939 were less than thrilled at the prospect of war after years of Nazi propaganda. And the Nazis were so utterly insane I doubt anything like them would be replicated in the vast majority of alternate universes.

Without even talking about who wins the civil war, Russia without Ukraine and Bielorussia is way less powerful than OTL USSR during the interwar period, at least there is significantly less potential and ressources to industrialize rapidly, let alone surpass Germany (ITTL a superpower) before many decades.

How do you think the USSR's industrialization could go without Ukraine and Belarus?

 

[Crazyduck156]

But there aren't any resurgent Russia or France, you think that after losing a conflict as bloody as WW1 they would want to start another one?

You mean like Germany in OTL?

Never underestimate the human desire for conflict

 

[Kronistry]

The problem is that the UK doesn't want to involve itself with conflicts on the continent and the US is significantly weaker without the victories in WW1 and WW2 and also wouldn't be keen on involving itself with Russia's mess, the Russians would mostly be reliant on what they can do themselves. Then there is the problem that while the Bolsheviks created a bad economy and society, their rapid modernization of Russia was essential for the upcoming WW2 of OTL (and if they win ITTL a potential war with Germany), the Whites are far from being very reform-minded and the Russian Empire would continue the kind of policies that were enacted by previous emperors, not ideal to overtake Germany.
Russia starts from a significantly worse position than Germany (like WW1 and a Civil War starting from a backwards society based primarily on agriculture) and doesn't seem to have the leadership needed to solve its problems so overtaking Germany by the 70's is optimistic to say the least.

Russia is not backward. It lacks industry and good leaders and I don't think at all the Whites would bring back the Tsar but instead form a dictatorial/Authoritarian Republic. If the Russians keep Ukraine, then it could rival Germany. Just two things: in 1970, Germany's population would be around 120 million inhabitants (if we're optimistic) where Russia's would be around nearly 300 million inhabitants without communism and WWII. Now imagine such an industrialized Russia with good leaders (I don't talk about geniuses, just 'good' leaders) and an educated elite. ITTL, the UK would likely be at least an unofficial ally of Russia. Now, it's true Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire could make a Victory for Russia near impossible, but economically and militarily, Germany wouldn't at all be free from Russia's threat. However, if Russia turns communist, it wouldn't be able to rival with Germany on the long run but the regime wouldn't fall either IMO, the German impending threat would unite the Russians and make them accept the (huge) flaws of the communist economy and society.

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

You mean like Germany in OTL?

Never underestimate the human desire for conflict

Most Germans didn't want war in 1939. Hell, most Germans in power didn't want war, and it took Hitler to force it through.

Russia is not backward. It lacks industry and good leaders and I don't think at all the Whites would bring back the Tsar but instead form a dictatorial/Authoritarian Republic. If the Russians keep Ukraine, then it could rival Germany. Just two things: in 1970, Germany's population would be around 120 million inhabitants (if we're optimistic) where Russia's would be around nearly 300 million inhabitants without communism and WWII. Now imagine such an industrialized Russia with good leaders (I don't talk about geniuses, just 'good' leaders) and an educated elite. ITTL, the UK would likely be at least an unofficial ally of Russia. Now, it's true Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire could make a Victory for Russia near impossible, but economically and militarily, Germany wouldn't at all be free from Russia's threat. However, if Russia turns communist, it wouldn't be able to rival with Germany on the long run but the regime wouldn't fall either IMO, the German impending threat would unite the Russians and make them accept the (huge) flaws of the communist economy and society.

Honestly, say what you will about Stalin and the USSR, but they did a great job building Russia into an industrial superpower that I doubt any other government could replicate in such a short amount of time.

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

You know, I've also heard that without US entry into WWI, there might not have been a Kerensky offensive due to no massive new loans from the US flowing into the Entente, which means no October Revolution. What effects might this have?

And while we're on the topic of Russian offensives, what effects might a failed Brusilov offensive have on the war? If the Russians fail to make serious gains, might there be an earlier revolution? Who would take power? What would a potential peace deal look like?

 

[Kronistry]

enough on that. To be fair though, the reason the continental states were more militarized than Britain was because they didn't have any natural boundaries like the Channel to protect them.

I agree.

WWII didn't discredit racism or conservatism though; just look at OTL's 1950s and 1960s in the United States. None of the main talking points of the Civil Rights movement were comparing Jim Crow to Hitler. I would argue that war generally doesn't weaken conservatism, but strengthen it. Instability and devastation create a yearning for a return to normalcy; look at Europe after the Napoleonic Wars, or the first few years of the Weimar Republic, with tons of far-right paramilitary groups running around. Look at the US after WWII or Vietnam.
As to your point about technology, WWII delayed the introduction of the television and set back European living standards by a lot; it took Europeans a lot longer to get dishwashers and radios in their houses than it did Americans. WWI set back radar development and civilian airliners.

I think without WWII, racism would have kept being way more prominent today, everywhere around the World. And during 1960's the Civil Rights movement won. And for the US After Vietnam, was it not like the peak of the hippies movement and the New Left ? And for Western Europe, After WWII marxism and existentialism became prominent up until the 1980's.
New technologies arrived in the US sooner because they were significantly in advance (mordern consumer society was there since the 1920's).

How do you think the USSR's industrialization could go without Ukraine and Belarus?

It would go slower and with less efficiency for sure. Even worse, Russia would have lost a quarter of its population without Ukraine and Bielorussia and a lot of ressources.

, say what you will about Stalin and the USSR, but they did a great job building Russia into an industrial superpower that I doubt any other government could replicate in such a short amount of time.

God knows I'm not fond of Communism at all, but I agree, without Stalin and co Russia could well have become a part of the German lebensraum.

And while we're on the topic of Russian offensives, what effects might a failed Brusilov offensive have on the war? If the Russians fail to make serious gains, might there be an earlier revolution? Who would take power? What would a potential peace deal look like?

It all depends on wether the Russian Provisional Government makes peace with the CP, if not it will fall but it would be far too complicated to guess which faction would win, even more in an already long post like the one I just wrote.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

True, but once the revolution doesn't come I doubt the Reds would stir up undue trouble.

The Whites won't be in a position to contest it either, they would say it's all the Jewish Bolsheviks' fault and go back to try to create a unified government (monarchic restoration is quite likely IMO).

There might well be more annexations, you're right. But I don't expect them to, for example, annex half of Belgium and all of Lorraine.

Morocco offers Mediterranean access for them, as well as more Atlantic bases.

Austria doesn't want more restless minorities, and annexing swaths of Italy is a recepie for instability and disaster.

Germany isn't planning on another war, they want to recover and make money again. Global markets help greatly with the latter.

It's simply that what you have in the OP is not enough for someone who just won a war, I can see them not antagonizing Britain in the peace deal but they would push for at least some control over Belgium and a little bit more French territory in Europe.

There are other colonies that could offer that instead of Morocco like you told nothing about Cyprus but wouldn't the Germans want to give it to the Ottomans to get a base in the ME?

Austria will do it precisely because it's stupid, was annexing more and more Slavs into the empire a good idea? No. Did they do it anyways? Yes.

Germany isn't planning on another war but you can't let the border being the same as pre-WW1 with the French knowing about the Schlieffen plan.

You mean like Germany in OTL?

Never underestimate the human desire for conflict

Not the same situation, Hitler was a madman and I wouldn't say that outside the SS and Nazi party the common people wanted to go to war. The Nazis didn't came to power either by saying they would go to war, they said they would solve economic problems and would bring back Germany's glory (they got 30% of the electorate thanks to this not even a majority) and had already achieved this by 1938.

Russia is not backward. It lacks industry and good leaders and I don't think at all the Whites would bring back the Tsar but instead form a dictatorial/Authoritarian Republic.

A monarchic restoration is quite likely IMO, the Whites lack a unified government and a monarch could provide this if enough people are fine with it (in the government not the common people).

If the Russians keep Ukraine, then it could rival Germany. Just two things: in 1970, Germany's population would be around 120 million inhabitants (if we're optimistic) where Russia's would be around nearly 300 million inhabitants without communism and WWII.

This population isn't very happy and there is no genocidal Nazis to convince that the Russian government is the lesser evil.

Now imagine such an industrialized Russia with good leaders (I don't talk about geniuses, just 'good' leaders) and an educated elite.

You mean the most conservative elements of Imperial Russia put together make 'good' leaders? They're going to do some things about industrialization but they won't radically reshape society. We can talk about all the things the communists did wrong in Russia but it is undoubtful that they created a large heavy industry base and social reforms (in the sense of throwing the nobility out of the window, persons like Zhukov would've been completely useless in any government the Whites would create) that allowed them to fight the Germans so effectively in WW2, there's no way Russian industrialization becomes anything similar to what it was IOTL.

ITTL, the UK would likely be at least an unofficial ally of Russia.

I doubt the UK would be very enthusiast to ally itself with Russia both because they don't exactly love the Russians and because they don't want trouble in another European great war, you could bring the French and the Italians to your cause if things go right but Britain would likely stay neutral.

Now, it's true Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire could make a Victory for Russia near impossible, but economically and militarily, Germany wouldn't at all be free from Russia's threat

That's why the Germans have a wonderful idea which is go destroy the Russians before the Russians destroy you, if Russia is successfully catching up with Germany the German High Command will have similar ideas to what they had IOTL pre-WW1.

However, if Russia turns communist, it wouldn't be able to rival with Germany on the long run but the regime wouldn't fall either IMO, the German impending threat would unite the Russians and make them accept the (huge) flaws of the communist economy and society.

If it turns communist it actually has a better chance of opposing Germany, even with Stalin's purges the Soviet government will be able to oppose the Germans much more effectively than Imperial Russia (or a similar state made by the Whites) could ever do.

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

I think without WWII, racism would have kept being way more prominent today, everywhere around the World. And during 1960's the Civil Rights movement won. And for the US After Vietnam, was it not like the peak of the hippies movement and the New Left ? And for Western Europe, After WWII marxism and existentialism became prominent up until the 1980's.
New technologies arrived in the US sooner because they were significantly in advance (mordern consumer society was there since the 1920's).

During the 1960s the racism of the Jim Crow South was put on display for all to see. The 1970s were pretty conservative IIRC.

I would also say that more than war, prosperity creates social progress. Look at early modern Europe, with the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, or the Roaring Twnties compared to the Great Depression, or, like you said, the New Left and the hippie movement in the 1960s. And it's not like the World Wars created the Suffragettes or the Civil Rights Movement; they had existed for decades, building up momentum until they reached critical mass. I would argue that the advent of the television was crucial for the Civil Rights Movement, as it was a lot harder to ignore the blatant racism on display if you can see it in your own living room.

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

The Whites won't be in a position to contest it either, they would say it's all the Jewish Bolsheviks' fault and go back to try to create a unified government (monarchic restoration is quite likely IMO).

That's true, and the main reason I talked about the Bolsheviks in the OP was to say that Germany wouldn't just invade Russia to topple them after the war.

Not the same situation, Hitler was a madman and I wouldn't say that outside the SS and Nazi party the common people wanted to go to war. The Nazis didn't came to power either by saying they would go to war, they said they would solve economic problems and would bring back Germany's glory (they got 30% of the electorate thanks to this not even a majority) and had already achieved this by 1938.

This. And they only got that 30% because of a massive economic crisis and tons of voter suppression and gerrymandering. And even with that, I still think Weimar could have been saved as late as 1932 or 33.

You mean the most conservative elements of Imperial Russia put together make 'good' leaders? They're going to do some things about industrialization but they won't radically reshape society. We can talk about all the things the communists did wrong in Russia but it is undoubtful that they created a large heavy industry base and social reforms (in the sense of throwing the nobility out of the window, persons like Zhukov would've been completely useless in any government the Whites would create) that allowed them to fight the Germans so effectively in WW2, there's no way Russian industrialization becomes anything similar to what it was IOTL.

I also fully agree with this. Without the USSR perhaps Russia would be healthier economically overall, but it wouldn't have become the superpower it did in OTL.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

This. And they only got that 30% because of a massive economic crisis and tons of voter suppression and gerrymandering. And even with that, I still think Weimar could have been saved as late as 1932 or 33.

It was a series of very unfortunate circumstances.

I also fully agree with this. Without the USSR perhaps Russia would be healthier economically overall, but it wouldn't have become the superpower it did in OTL.

Especially not when there is also potential for German intervention in Russia to prevent it from rising further.

 

[Kronistry]

Most Germans didn't want war in 1939. Hell, most Germans in power didn't want war, and it took Hitler to force it through.

TBH, it's even worse, as Hitler didn't want War at all against France and the UK. To him the conflict with Poland would be a Quick and more than easy campaign and the Western allies wouldn't intervene. Afterwards, he had envisionned a War with the URSS (with still no western intervention) that would guarantee him his lebensraum and thus accomplish his main ideological goals.

Not the same situation, Hitler was a madman and I wouldn't say that outside the SS and Nazi party the common people wanted to go to war. The Nazis didn't came to power either by saying they would go to war, they said they would solve economic problems and would bring back Germany's glory (they got 30% of the electorate thanks to this not even a majority) and had already achieved this by 1938.

Why does everyone seem to think Hitler was a madman? He was more than evil but he had (very scary) rational ideas to accomplish his (very scary and horrible) ideas. Also, he was surely forced to go to war because his remilitarization program was destroying German economy, and thus plundering was one of his only option to Survive.

monarchic restoration is quite likely IMO, the Whites lack a unified government and a monarch could provide this if enough people are fine with it (in the government not the common people).

Wrangel, Denikin and Koltchak were ok with the idea of a republic.

This population isn't very happy and there is no genocidal Nazis to convince that the Russian government is the lesser evil.

They are Whites, not Communists, thus the population standard of living is way better.

You mean the most conservative elements of Imperial Russia put together make 'good' leaders? They're going to do some things about industrialization but they won't radically reshape society. We can talk about all the things the communists did wrong in Russia but it is undoubtful that they created a large heavy industry base and social reforms (in the sense of throwing the nobility out of the window, persons like Zhukov would've been completely useless in any government the Whites would create) that allowed them to fight the Germans so effectively in WW2, there's no way Russian industrialization becomes anything similar to what it was IOTL.

I agree on the short-term, but on the long run Communism can't just allow a substainable developpement.

doubt the UK would be very enthusiast to ally itself with Russia both because they don't exactly love the Russians and because they don't want trouble in another European great war, you could bring the French and the Italians to your cause if things go right but Britain would likely stay neutral.

Germany's european situation is way too hegemonic to provock no British reaction.

That's why the Germans have a wonderful idea which is go destroy the Russians before the Russians destroy you, if Russia is successfully catching up with Germany the German High Command will have similar ideas to what they had IOTL pre-WW1.

Except WWI killed many many Germans and nearly was a defeat. And the SPD is prominent there, so no such reaction IMO.

During the 1960s the racism of the Jim Crow South was put on display for all to see. The 1970s were pretty conservative IIRC.

I would also say that more than war, prosperity creates social progress. Look at early modern Europe, with the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, or the Roaring Twnties compared to the Great Depression, or, like you said, the New Left and the hippie movement in the 1960s. And it's not like the World Wars created the Suffragettes or the Civil Rights Movement; they had existed for decades, building up momentum until they reached critical mass. I would argue that the advent of the television was crucial for the Civil Rights Movement, as it was a lot harder to ignore the blatant racism on display if you can see it in your own living room.

The Roaring twenties were incredibly hard Times in most of the World, except in the US and the Enlightment Era appeared in a century where wars were constant in Europe. Agree with you with TV and the effects of technology.

 

[Crazyduck156]

Most Germans didn't want war in 1939. Hell, most Germans in power didn't want war, and it took Hitler to force it through.

Ok but they still did. So just saying "nah france/russia wont start another war after losing WW1" falls a bit flat

 

[Crazyduck156]

Not the same situation, Hitler was a madman and I wouldn't say that outside the SS and Nazi party the common people wanted to go to war. The Nazis didn't came to power either by saying they would go to war, they said they would solve economic problems and would bring back Germany's glory (they got 30% of the electorate thanks to this not even a majority) and had already achieved this by 1938.

So unless you believe the Nazis were a ASB and that what happened to germany couldn't possibly happen to France or Russia/soviets (because the latter definitely didn't have its own uncaring madman in charge...) then its must be possible they could start another war.

Just going "nah wouldn't happen" flies in the face of our own reality.

And all of this ignores Italy which won WW1 but still got its own madman in charge with ideas of aggressive expansion

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

Except WWI killed many many Germans and nearly was a defeat. And the SPD is prominent there, so no such reaction IMO.

Yeah, I find the idea of Germany preemptively invading Russia to be flawed. After all, if they really would do that, why not do it in 1905?

The Roaring twenties were incredibly hard Times in most of the World, except in the US and the Enlightment Era appeared in a century where wars were constant in Europe. Agree with you with TV and the effects of technology.

True, but most of the liberalism happened in the US or the temporarily stabilized European states. And the Enlightenment did happen in a violent era, but it was still prosperous, and the Enlightenment wasn't caused by the wars.

Ok but they still did. So just saying "nah france/russia wont start another war after losing WW1" falls a bit flat

WWII was incredibly unlikely in OTL.

So unless you believe the Nazis were a ASB and that what happened to germany couldn't possibly happen to France or Russia/soviets (because the latter definitely didn't have its own uncaring madman in charge...) then its must be possible they could start another war.

Just going "nah wouldn't happen" flies in the face of our own reality.

And all of this ignores Italy which won WW1 but still got its own madman in charge with ideas of aggressive expansion

The Nazis would be called ASB in any timeline that isn't OTL. Almost nobody wanted another war in OTL.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Why does everyone seem to think Hitler was a madman? He was more than evil but he had (very scary) rational ideas to accomplish his (very scary and horrible) ideas. Also, he was surely forced to go to war because his remilitarization program was destroying German economy, and thus plundering was one of his only option to Survive.

The things he did that ultimately forced him to go to war were not something sane persons would do.

Wrangel, Denikin and Koltchak were ok with the idea of a republic.

I don't have the impression they would oppose a return of the Romanovs either.

They are Whites, not Communists, thus the population standard of living is way better.

Look at how happy the Russians were during Nicholas II's reign, they wouldn't hate the government as much as Stalin but they wouldn't love it either and if the Russians still do the same things they did in WW1 they willl be very hated.

I agree on the short-term, but on the long run Communism can't just allow a substainable developpement.

The conservatives have the absolutely opposite problem which is not developing enough and the Soviets while suffering from some serious issues would probably still survive ITTL.

Germany's european situation is way too hegemonic to provock no British reaction.

Last time the British let the Germans provoke them it went very badly for them, there wouldn't be much persons who would be enthusiast about going for round two.

Except WWI killed many many Germans and nearly was a defeat. And the SPD is prominent there, so no such reaction IMO.

You still have a similar High Command and Whilhelm II will sit on the throne for a while, I wouldn't expect the Germans to do nothing if the Russians are seriously becoming a threat.

So unless you believe the Nazis were a ASB and that what happened to germany couldn't possibly happen to France or Russia/soviets (because the latter definitely didn't have its own uncaring madman in charge...) then its must be possible they could start another war.

I'm not saying that it's phisically impossible but extremely, extremely unlikely, France would have a change of government every 6 months and tends more towards the left than towards the right while Russia has a madman but a madman who constantly tried not to provoke anyone for all the time he ruled over the USSR.

Just going "nah wouldn't happen" flies in the face of our own reality.

That's precisely why it's unlikely it happens, what's the chance that you have something like the Nazis again?

And all of this ignores Italy which won WW1 but still got its own madman in charge with ideas of aggressive expansion

I wouldn't define Mussolini a madman, he was a bad person however his choices were rational, he used the clear weakness of the Little Entente to invade Ethiopia (among other things) and alligned himself with Germany also because of that; then he was neutral in WW2 up until the point when France was clearly lost to get his share of the pie.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Yeah, I find the idea of Germany preemptively invading Russia to be flawed. After all, if they really would do that, why not do it in 1905?

Germany (or at least its High Command and some politicians) wanted to go to war with Russia to prevent its rise IOTL, the reason they didn't was because diplomatic incidents before the July Crisis were solved however at some points hostilities were bound to open and fate decided it was to be the July Crisis that would do that, the Germans had ideas to go to war with Russia sooner but cooler head prevailed.
Going to war in 1905 is not reasonable since you don't have a reason to, Russia did absolutely nothing that you could use to declare war also the Germans were very preoccupied by Russia's industrialization after 1905.

 

[Kronistry]

Yeah, I find the idea of Germany preemptively invading Russia to be flawed. After all, if they really would do that, why not do it in 1905?

I think many views we have on the Kaiserreich are flawed and were too based on wartime propaganda, IMO.

True, but most of the liberalism happened in the US or the temporarily stabilized European states. And the Enlightenment did happen in a violent era, but it was still prosperous, and the Enlightenment wasn't caused by the wars.

A strange thing is that Enlightment wasn't as liberal as many seem to believe. The ideas were liberal, but one of the Enlightment's Big consequence was the French Revolution, where many revolutionnaries just wanted to impose a proto-totalitarian state (this is an oversimplification of course, but you've got my point).

The things he did that ultimately forced him to go to war were not something sane persons would do.

You could say that of most of Great historical figures (Lenin, Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Bismarck, Henry VIII, even the US founding Fathers on some points). My point is not to Say that Hitler wasn't evil, but calling him a madman seems very lazy to me (no offense of course).

don't have the impression they would oppose a return of the Romanovs either.

The vast majority of the population being against it might be a good reason to not do so IMO.

Look at how happy the Russians were during Nicholas II's reign, they wouldn't hate the government as much as Stalin but they wouldn't love it either and if the Russians still do the same things they did in WW1 they willl be very hated.

Russian autocracy wouldn't be brought back realisticaly and with industrialization the majority of what made the Russians unhappy would disappear.

The conservatives have the absolutely opposite problem which is not developing enough and the Soviets while suffering from some serious issues would probably still survive ITTL.

I mean, the USSR crumbled on their own while being a superpower and facing no existential threat. And WWI changed a lot of minds so the conservative might developp Russia on the long run.

Not going for round 2, just making allies in case.

You still have a similar High Command and Whilhelm II will sit on the throne for a while, I wouldn't expect the Germans to do nothing if the Russians are seriously becoming a threat.

After WWI, militarism would be near death in Germany and Wilhelm had lost basically all of his influence by then. The Kaiserreich wasn't a proto-Nazi, expansionnist state as many think it to be. As the OP Said, Germany was as militaristic as France.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

A strange thing is that Enlightment wasn't as liberal as many seem to believe. The ideas were liberal, but one of the Enlightment's Big consequence was the French Revolution, where many revolutionnaries just wanted to impose a proto-totalitarian state (this is an oversimplification of course, but you've got my point).

The enlightenment deviated from its original purposes in a somewhat similar way to how communism deviated, fact is that unstable time periods in the aftermath of the French Revolution and the October Revolution do not favour the rise of non-dictatorial governments.

You could say that of most of Great historical figures (Lenin, Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Bismarck, Henry VIII, even the US founding Fathers on some points). My point is not to Say that Hitler wasn't evil, but calling him a madman seems very lazy to me (no offense of course).

Let's say that I find many of his policies and actions during Appeasement of doubtful value at best.

The vast majority of the population being against it might be a good reason to not do so IMO.

The vast majority of the population wouldn't want the Whites at all, however after years of destructive warfare I think the Russian people just want peace.

Russian autocracy wouldn't be brought back realisticaly and with industrialization the majority of what made the Russians unhappy would disappear.

The Whites were the most conservative parts of Russian society so I would say that they wouldn't have a too different stance than the Imperial government on Socialists, Russification etc. And indstrialization wouldn't come fast nor would solve Russia's internal problems, the Whites are known for how they viewed socialists so don't expect anything different than Bloody Sunday.

I mean, the USSR crumbled on their own while being a superpower and facing no existential threat.

That was consequence of a few not so likely events such as the Oil Glut and Gorbachev's rize to power.

And WWI changed a lot of minds so the conservative might developp Russia on the long run.

Everybody acknowledged that Russia needed to modernize after the Crimean War and the Russo-Japanese war yet somehow they weren't that successful.

Not going for round 2, just making allies in case.

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.

After WWI, militarism would be near death in Germany and Wilhelm had lost basically all of his influence by then. The Kaiserreich wasn't a proto-Nazi, expansionnist state as many think it to be. As the OP Said, Germany was as militaristic as France.

Guys like Hindemburg and Lundendorff were there the entire time during the Weimar Republic so I wouldn't say that militarism is dead. I don't think the Second Reich was like the Third one either but seeing how the army and the emperor behaved pre-WW1 I would say that finishing off Russia is something they would at least seriously consider.

 

[Kronistry]

enlightenment deviated from its original purposes in a somewhat similar way to how communism deviated, fact is that unstable time periods in the aftermath of the French Revolution and the October Revolution do not favour the rise of non-dictatorial governments.

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.

Let's say that I find many of his policies and actions during Appeasement of doubtful value at best.

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

The vast majority of the population wouldn't want the Whites at all, however after years of destructive warfare I think the Russian people just want peace.

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.

The Whites were the most conservative parts of Russian society so I would say that they wouldn't have a too different stance than the Imperial government on Socialists, Russification etc. And indstrialization wouldn't come fast nor would solve Russia's internal problems, the Whites are known for how they viewed socialists so don't expect anything different than Bloody Sunday.

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.

That was consequence of a few not so likely events such as the Oil Glut and Gorbachev's rize to power.

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.

Everybody acknowledged that Russia needed to modernize after the Crimean War and the Russo-Japanese war yet somehow they weren't that successful.

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.

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.

Yes I agree. It doesn't change that much as no one would want to go to War again.

Guys like Hindemburg and Lundendorff were there the entire time during the Weimar Republic so I wouldn't say that militarism is dead. I don't think the Second Reich was like the Third one either but seeing how the army and the emperor behaved pre-WW1 I would say that finishing off Russia is something they would at least seriously consider

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.