AH Gurps setting WW1 stilling going in 1964

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

What about:

The war ends with an armistice. The peace of Geneva settles terms favorable to the Central Powers, who had the upper hand in the end. Germany doesn't get everything that it wanted by any means, but she does get the 'Central European Customs Union.'

First of all, totally not what the OP was asking for.

All of Ireland is freed from British rule and united under the Republican allies of the Kaiser. No IRA terrorism, no Troubles, none of that.

The Protestants would go nuts. Blood in the streets.

The trade alliance expands over time, and states cooperate on security matters when confronted with the Bolshevik menace. In time, Germany comes to dominate the 'European Union.'

This requires the French and British to be amazingly good losers. The more probable outcome is that they team up with Russians for round two.

WW2 begins when Stalin invades Poland in 1939.

No. If peace is made on Germany's terms, there is no Poland to invade. He would hardly invade Germany. Stalin was fundamentally a cautious man (to the point of paranoia). Without allies he'd never dream of attacking the most powerful nation in the world.

Israel is never created. Palestine remains under Ottoman rule

.

The Ottoman empire is contracting as it divests itself of troublesome fringe possessions, which is how the Balkans became independant in the first place. The chance that the Ottomans wouldn't sell out of Palestine is pretty low given another fifty years. The Jews were moving into the area no matter much. It's about as likely that Israel would remain an Ottoman possession as it was that Texas would remain part of Mexico.

America, having avoided both world wars and the Cold War (which never even happens), is in a much better position than in OTL.

With Germany as the dominant world power, sooner or later it will go to war with Britain again in order to finally eliminate it as a naval power. Britain will provide provocation because the British were always afraid of being dominated by a continental great power. Expecting the British to get along with the new Europower is like postulating a ATL where the British decide that Napoleon is not a problem for them. Assuming the British lose with the help of an authorial thumb on the scales, the Americans will be scared enough to wet themselves, particularly after the Germans start rolling up the British Empire and develop and use atomic weapons. And you know what Yoda says about fear.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

First of all, totally not what the OP was asking for.




The Protestants would go nuts. Blood in the streets.



This requires the French and British to be amazingly good losers. The more probable outcome is that they team up with Russians for round two.



No. If peace is made on Germany's terms, there is no Poland to invade. He would hardly invade Germany. Stalin was fundamentally a cautious man (to the point of paranoia). Without allies he'd never dream of attacking the most powerful nation in the world.

.

The Ottoman empire is contracting as it divests itself of troublesome fringe possessions, which is how the Balkans became independant in the first place. The chance that the Ottomans wouldn't sell out of Palestine is pretty low given another fifty years. The Jews were moving into the area no matter much. It's about as likely that Israel would remain an Ottoman possession as it was that Texas would remain part of Mexico.



With Germany as the dominant world power, sooner or later it will go to war with Britain again in order to finally eliminate it as a naval power. Britain will provide provocation because the British were always afraid of being dominated by a continental great power. Expecting the British to get along with the new Europower is like postulating a ATL where the British decide that Napoleon is not a problem for them. Assuming the British lose with the help of an authorial thumb on the scales, the Americans will be scared enough to wet themselves, particularly after the Germans start rolling up the British Empire and develop and use atomic weapons. And you know what Yoda says about fear.

I was suggesting a possible contrast to the previous poster's predictions.
Still, let me address each point in turn;

Which Protestants? You know it wasn't about religion, right? More than a few of the IRA and IRB men were Protestants, in fact. It's true that the crazy Orange Order types would probably go nuts, but I expect that they'd get squashed without backing from the Brits. One united Eire, and Brits Out!

It is possible that the Brits and French would betray human civilization by siding with the Soviets. It's also possible that they would not.

Poland could be a German possession and still get invaded. It might also be a border state. You'll note that the peace treaty does not give the Central Powers everything they wanted.

Stalin was a megalomaniac and a paranoid mass murderer. That doesn't strike me as 'cautious.'
Let's grant your appraisal of him, though. Maybe the French and the Brits do ally with him, at least nominally, giving him the courage to act. The Central Powers+ the rest of allied Europe then beat them all in WW2. Then they can hang Churchill for sponsoring Orange Terrorism in United Eire, too. :)
Go Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Ottomans!

Palestine is worth holding on to. The Turks would let the Arabian desert regions go first- assuming the oil hadn't yet been found there. Even supposing that they did grant independence, why must we assume that the Zionists could get and keep all that territory with the help of the United States? No, I expect no British Mandate, no Holocaust, no American involvment in WW2, no UN partition of Palestine= no Israel.

Maybe the Brits just lose so badly that they are permanently reduced to lesser power status.
Perhaps there is another world war later, in which the US allies with the Central Powers to crush the evil that is Perfidious Albion?

:)

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

You must also be unaware of how and why the US became involved in Indochina. With no Soviet Union and no Maoist China, or Mao only as a big bandit leader, the 'domino theory' is out the window. No Cold War.
Why would Americans care which nationalists kicked a bunch of Frenchies out of Vietnam, so long as we could sell stuff to the winners?

Because Washington does not want these countries to be truly working on their own, and controlling their own resources, since Western businesses don't want the competition; the cheaper raw materials don't hurt either. Nor does Paris, Moscow, Beijing, Tokyo or London want this, for that matter. The Pentagon Papers make it pretty clear the US was actively considering working with Ho until about 1950, when it decided that it wanted France to keep the colonial empire in spite of France being rightfully reluctant. After Dien Bien Phu, it was a matter of a transfer from one colonial sphere of orbit to another. Plus, these wars keep the defense budgets high, which pumps money into the economy and stabilized the world currency until Nixon broke off Bretton Woods in 1970.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

Because Washington does not want these countries to be truly working on their own, and controlling their own resources, since Western businesses don't want the competition; the cheaper raw materials don't hurt either. Nor does Paris, Moscow, Beijing, Tokyo or London want this, for that matter. The Pentagon Papers make it pretty clear the US was actively considering working with Ho until about 1950, when it decided that it wanted France to keep the colonial empire in spite of France being rightfully reluctant. After Dien Bien Phu, it was a matter of a transfer from one colonial sphere of orbit to another. Plus, these wars keep the defense budgets high, which pumps money into the economy and stabilized the world currency until Nixon broke off Bretton Woods in 1970.

Comparative advantage.

One of the great ironies of history is that 'evil' corporate interests are just wrong. Truly greedy and self-interested bastards benefit from self-determination and freedom.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

No. In the Versailles Treaty the Germans lost too much. The kind of truce I'm talking about is more like the ones which concluded the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The Germans would remain in their positions in France still controlling the territory they occupied, the Kaiser would remain as government head. It would just be a provisional truce where hostilities stopped as the sides negotiated a more lasting treaty which never happens. 5-10 years later when negotiations break down, they go back at it for another 10 years or so, followed by another truce and so on. And year after year the walls and minefields demarcating no-man's land get more and more impenetrable making attempts to make headway more an more inconclusive.

This is probably your best bet for doing this realistically, but isn't really in the tradition of the long conventional war as end of the world story, so it may not be what is being looked for here. Those tend to continue throwing everything into the fighting even as everybody's economy collapses and civil governments fall to bits.

Making it work to stretch out the war does depend on nobody using the truce period to figure out a better strategy and build the equipment to implement it, so riding the war into a Great Depression that never lifts is actually pretty helpful. Trench lines were already getting hard to defend in 1918, what with tanks and airplanes starting to come on line, and there's always the possibility of making an amphibious landing work. Crashing everybody's economy slows technological progress and makes this sort of thing less affordable.

You'll also probably want widespread colonial revolts, the British Empire really needs to fall apart, it is simply too large a fraction of the world economy not to win quicker than that otherwise. Though maybe if you bring the US into the war on the side of the Central Powers instead. But the world economy in the early 20th century essentially consists of the British Empire, the United States, and Everybody Else put together, and Everybody Else is probably the smallest of the three, you *have* to have sides closer to equality to drag a total war out for decades.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

Because Washington does not want these countries to be truly working on their own, and controlling their own resources, since Western businesses don't want the competition; the cheaper raw materials don't hurt either. Nor does Paris, Moscow, Beijing, Tokyo or London want this, for that matter. The Pentagon Papers make it pretty clear the US was actively considering working with Ho until about 1950, when it decided that it wanted France to keep the colonial empire in spite of France being rightfully reluctant. After Dien Bien Phu, it was a matter of a transfer from one colonial sphere of orbit to another. Plus, these wars keep the defense budgets high, which pumps money into the economy and stabilized the world currency until Nixon broke off Bretton Woods in 1970.

Ah, but why would you expect the same administrations, if so much else had changed? WW2 as it really happened had profound effects on US politics and policies, foreign and domestic.
You may or may not ever have as presidents Ike, JFK, or Nixon if you take the US out of an AH WW2(Central Powers and allies vs Soviets).
Say you get Wallace or Taft? Foreign policy suddenly looks a lot different.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

I

Which Protestants? You know it wasn't about religion, right? More than a few of the IRA and IRB men were Protestants, in fact. It's true that the crazy Orange Order types would probably go nuts, but I expect that they'd get squashed without backing from the Brits.

Since Ireland is backed by the Germans, the British will back anyone who causes them trouble.

It is possible that the Brits and French would betray human civilization by siding with the Soviets. It's also possible that they would not.

Bear in mind that historically they let Adolph Hitler build up his power and double the size of Germany to try to play him against the Soviets, and when that didn't work out, they (the British) made common cause against Germany with the Soviets. You may think that being defeated powers would make them nicer. I find that hard to believe.

Poland could be a German possession and still get invaded. It might also be a border state.

Since Poland did not exist prior to the end of the Great War, it is unreasonable to expect it to exist after the end of a Great War that the German won (or even broke even). The Germans weren't fighting to give up territory.

Stalin was a megalomaniac and a paranoid mass murderer. That doesn't strike me as 'cautious.'

It is though. Stalin only ever picked on much smaller nations, and his paranoid mass murdering ways were driven by his fear of losing power. If Stalin had been the kind of man who would launch a frontal assault on the most powerful nation in the world...well, lets just say the Cold War would have been a lot shorter.

Let's grant your appraisal of him, though. Maybe the French and the Brits do ally with him, at least nominally, giving him the courage to act. The Central Powers+ the rest of allied Europe then beat them all in WW2.

It is improbable that the rest of "allied" Europe would see that as anything other than a chance to break away again from German domination. We saw it again and again in the Napoleonic wars.

Palestine is worth holding on to.

Why?

The Turks would let the Arabian desert regions go first- assuming the oil hadn't yet been found there. Even supposing that they did grant independence, why must we assume that the Zionists could get and keep all that territory with the help of the United States?

It's questionable whether the Zionists actually needed all that American backing. But even if they did, Palestine will be no less troubled with Jewish terrorists in the place of Palestinian terrorists.

Maybe the Brits just lose so badly that they are permanently reduced to lesser power status.

Which will inevitably lead to the Americans wetting themselves with fear, and building up in reaction to the Germans, a expansionistic power taking over the British possessions and rising to a level of world dominance that dwarfs even the British empire.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Say you get Wallace or Taft? Foreign policy suddenly looks a lot different.

Honestly, no it doesn't. Over the long term, the United States is compelled by it's interests to do things like oppose Middle Eastern unification, Japanese expansion into Asia, Russian expansion anywhere and the development of Europe into an autonomous unified state. Any individual President who deviates from those interests will probably be a one-termer and his changes in policy will be reversed by the next guy.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Honestly, no it doesn't. Over the long term, the United States is compelled by it's interests to do things like oppose Middle Eastern unification, Japanese expansion into Asia, Russian expansion anywhere and the development of Europe into an autonomous unified state. Any individual President who deviates from those interests will probably be a one-termer and his changes in policy will be reversed by the next guy.

Very deterministic of you. I don't agree. This is a basic difference in how we understand history. Of course, as history is not and cannot be a science, there's no way to really test these ideas.
All we can do is argue casuality and try to build plausible cases.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Which will inevitably lead to the Americans wetting themselves with fear, and building up in reaction to the Germans, a expansionistic power taking over the British possessions and rising to a level of world dominance that dwarfs even the British empire.

That's assuming more expansion and success for the Germans than I had assumed, actually. Europe isn't the whole world, and dominating that 'continent' isn't the same as dominating the whole world. Who said the Germans would take over all the British possessions? Not I.


Why would you assume an inevitable conflict between the dominant powers in Europe and the US? We could just be friends with the Germans, Austrians, and Turks. We ended up being friendly with the English, who really ought to be our enemies. After all, y'all oppressed our ancestors, preyed on our shipping, pressed our sailors, invaded us, etc. Not to mention that many Americans are of Scottish or Irish descent, their ancestors driven from home by the cruelty and rapacity of the English. Ah, and we have a lot of German heritage, too.

Is America an enemy of the OTL EU? I think not.