New Reality Seeds

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by ericthered

So if I understand the Red King World correctly, it consists of mass delusions by 70% of the population to full-fill the self-centered fantasies and daydreams of .1% of the population.

So you have things like a suburban neighborhood that is obviously a suburban neighborhood, but most the people in it think they're ancient hunters that wear animal skins and have a rivalry with a neighboring tribe. They hunt the local dogs, cats, and humans unfortunate enough to be tagged as "game" in this delusion, and there are periodic clashes between rival tribes in a baseball diamond with hideously ineffective sticks everyone things are spears and baseball bats everyone thinks are clubs.

Does that sound right?

That's a particularly bad Red King, I'll admit: you're more likely to end up waiting hand and foot on a spoiled princess who lives in a "castle" that is just the biggest house on the block. Or building one from scratch on the local baseball diamond.

That's how I'm interpreting the world, anyways.

You've got it right. This is a variant of a zombie apocalypse. The delusional elements add satire and subtle styles of horror.

[Curmudgeon]

Maybe the biggest joker for Germany picking up colonies turns out to be the Imperial War Cabinet. During WWI, the four self-governing Dominions are Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa. Britain sees the writing on the wall, adds the Sikhs to the party and devolves the Empire onto the Dominions. Given their placement: Canada picks up the British West Indies, British Honduras [Belize] and British Guinea [Guyana], maybe the French West Indies, French Guinea and St. Pierre and Miquelon from the French as well; Australia and New Zealand jointly pick up most of British Oceania, probably as far as Malay and Hong Kong, and maybe French Oceania and French Indochina as well; the Sikhs get India [Pakistan, India & Bangladesh] along with Burma [Myanmar], Ceylon [Sri Lanka] and the Seychelles and Maldives; the Union of South Africa picks up British East Africa, most of British West Africa and possibly French Equatorial Africa; French West Africa and Madagascar [Malagasy] as well as South Georgia and St. Helena. Who gets the Falklands is an open question.

Germany would be looking at five powers that are relatively fresh and also, paradoxically, tried in the crucible. It may settle for the colonies it already has: Tanganyika [mainland Tanzania], South-West Africa [Namibia] and, if memory serves, Togo, along with Europe.

It probably won't try for the Belgian Congo. It's not that it wouldn't like it but it would probably have to try and take it. Marching into Belgium more or less set Britain off, marching into the Belgian Congo might set off an African war with the Union of South Africa. Germany's best bet might be to arm the oppressed blacks and then come in to pick up the pieces afterward. At worst, they could probably expect favourable trade deals with the newly liberated nation.

The biggest change in a WWI where the U.S. stays out (and it's not a guaranteed thing that that would change the long term victory in WWI) would be no Wilson's 14 points and no ethnic self-determination. Poland probably remains non-existent, along with Czechoslovakia and the Balkans.. An extended period of unrestricted submarine warfare might see sub vs. sub warfare on a grand scale.

[scc]

Originally Posted by fchase8

Quick victory, where Paris is captured fast, could see such states as Austro-Hungary, Ottoman Turkey, and even Czarist Russia stay standing. The model would clearly be the Franco-Prussian War of 1871, which was a quick Prussian victory. Germany might demand some French colonial territory as reparations (maybe Belgian Congo too), expanding in West Africa and perhaps taking Indochina. Austro-Hungary would expand even further in the Balkans, taking at least Serbia.

This is what the Kaiser's generals expected, which is why it also far less likely than a long victory. It seems like it would only happen if Great Britain never entered on the Franco-Russian side. A German victory wouldn't be the 'defining great power war', just a table-setting before Germany vs. U.K. All the problems the imperial monarchies in Berlin, Vienna/Budapest, Petrograd, and Constantinople had would still be there, waiting for the next war to explode.

Well apparently the Paris Gun was fired at Paris from only 120km away, so if the Germans had only been a day or two quicker getting through the Low Countries I can see them reaching Paris, or at least getting close enough to shell Paris with more regular artillery.

[fchase8]

France wouldn't give up Algeria (look how hard it was IRL), but Germany might demand Indochina - something big to 'justify' all the wartime sacrifices. Germany might also push for Moroccan independence, as Berlin had intervened in France's takeover of Morocco in 1910 (it was also a much more recent colony).


Japan would likely get friendly with Imperial Germany after a German WWI victory, as Germany had a Pacific empire, plus possibly Indochina. But it would be like Japan's alliance with Britain - eventually to fall in the face of rising Japanese imperialism & nationalism.


The British Dominions could take over some colonies (like they did in WWII), but they're too thinly-populated to take over big ones. Sure, Canada in the Caribbean, Australia & New Zealand in the Pacific, South Africa in Rhodesia, but I can't see it much more than that (maybe French Caribbean & Pacific - though I bet Germany would take over at least French Pacific, given that it had its own Pacific empire relatively nearby).

In Dixie on GURPS Infinite Earths, South Africa left the British Empire and took over Southern Rhodesia. The Caribbean seemed to become part of the Confederacy (there's a state called 'Caribbea') - that's presumably the CSA annexing the British Caribbean (and maybe the French, if the Germans didn't take it) after Britain quit India. The CSA likely garrisoned the British Caribbean during WWI and the Alliance War, so it would have been easier to pull off. Plus British Canada was much smaller in Dixie, just the eastern half.


Belgian Congo wouldn't be worth taking over by Germany (Belgian King Leopold only made money off of it by extreme brutality, even by African colonial standards, and that was such a scandal that Belgium had to take it over), but German imperial designs would just love the massive central African colony. It also bordered German East Africa in the 'Great Lakes' region.

Belgium/King Leopold's scandalous history in the Congo would make taking it less of a cause celeb in Britain. Compared to invading Belgium proper, Britain wouldn't care about Belgian Congo.

Originally Posted by scc

Well apparently the Paris Gun was fired at Paris from only 120km away, so if the Germans had only been a day or two quicker getting through the Low Countries I can see them reaching Paris, or at least getting close enough to shell Paris with more regular artillery.

Would France fold if Paris fell? The French would have put up a hell of a resistance (look at Verdun). Germans might get within artillery distance, but capturing the whole capital (which was one of the biggest cities in Europe) would be hard at that point.

Could there have been a second Paris Commune if the Germans got close enough? A French socialist/communist putsch in Paris could bring about France folding.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Germany would be looking at five powers that are relatively fresh and also, paradoxically, tried in the crucible.

I suspect it would be more like looking more at nations that are paradoxically both exhausted and untried: the dominions fought in the war. Hard. Not as hard as mother country, but they still lost a good chunks of their young men. And decentralizing the empire won't strengthen its collective power.

You also seem to be assuming a fairly weak win by germany consisting almost entirely of a russian and french collapse.

It probably won't try for the Belgian Congo. It's not that it wouldn't like it but it would probably have to try and take it. Marching into Belgium more or less set Britain off, marching into the Belgian Congo might set off an African war with the Union of South Africa. Germany's best bet might be to arm the oppressed blacks and then come in to pick up the pieces afterward. At worst, they could probably expect favourable trade deals with the newly liberated nation.

A ww1 German victory includes taking over a Belgium. This isn't just a possibility: this is one of the things the Germans focused on in all peace talks that were favorable to Germany: they had to keep Belgium as such a puppet state that it may as well become part of the empire. And as goes Belgium, so goes the Congo. Unless you you have someone take it from the belgians by force (such as germany).

The biggest change in a WWI where the U.S. stays out (and it's not a guaranteed thing that that would change the long term victory in WWI) would be no Wilson's 14 points and no ethnic self-determination. Poland probably remains non-existent, along with Czechoslovakia and the Balkans.. An extended period of unrestricted submarine warfare might see sub vs. sub warfare on a grand scale.

Ethnic Self-determination was not created by Wilson. The Central powers actually created a polish nation during the war from Russian and Austrian territory in an attempt to harness polish nationalism. Yes, Austria promised to give up some of its own territory to the poles in order to create a polish nation, in exchange for polish patriotism during the war, and to some extent to ensure such a polish nation was created on its own terms. Ethnic self-determination started the war. Wilson's determination on pushing it helped Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, and split Austria from Hungary (that was the real big change). Poland was going to happen anyways. Though whose territory it would be formed from and who it would like was not set in stone.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by fchase8

Would France fold if Paris fell?

Not if it fell quickly. Taking the capital is a victory condition mostly because the defender will normally use anything he has to stop you, so if you win anyway, he doesn't have very much left. If you take it before he can do that, he's not going to fold with an intact army, he really has to make at least one major attempt to take it back.

I also doubt it would be done easily. Taking a modern city is hard, and calls for different tactics than field battles or more traditional sieges, though I'm not sure World War I planners would quite realize that yet. It's not until Stalingrad and Budapest in the Second World War that this is obvious to everybody, though the Americans might have a clue from a few bad experiences in the Mexican American War.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Not if it fell quickly. Taking the capital is a victory condition mostly because the defender will normally use anything he has to stop you, so if you win anyway, he doesn't have very much left. If you take it before he can do that, he's not going to fold with an intact army, he really has to make at least one major attempt to take it back.

I also doubt it would be done easily. Taking a modern city is hard, and calls for different tactics than field battles or more traditional sieges, though I'm not sure World War I planners would quite realize that yet. It's not until Stalingrad and Budapest in the Second World War that this is obvious to everybody, though the Americans might have a clue from a few bad experiences in the Mexican American War.

Paris is special. Paris isn't just the political and cultural heart of france, its also the economic and logistical heart. Every major railway runs through Paris. You take that railway hub, and France is cut into a half dozen pieces. I don't know about telegraph lines, but I suspect they are built in a similar fashion. Additionally, its heavy industry is concentrated there, so if you take Paris, you take that as well.

Taking Paris was done in the wars immediately preceding and following WWI, and France did indeed fold soon afterwards in both cases. I see no reason why this would be different.

[Astromancer]

One thing to remember with any alternate WWI, Russia. Sure lots of potential, but even more instability. Even if the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk gets signed, that whole area of the planet is politically and culturally unstable. Even if the Kaiser rules the German Empire, there are going to be more and nastier wars in Eastern Europe and West Asia. I've recently come to the conclusion that NATO only pushed back the third round of WWI into the 21st century.

[Kymage]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

One thing to remember with any alternate WWI, Russia. Sure lots of potential, but even more instability. Even if the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk gets signed, that whole area of the planet is politically and culturally unstable. Even if the Kaiser rules the German Empire, there are going to be more and nastier wars in Eastern Europe and West Asia. I've recently come to the conclusion that NATO only pushed back the third round of WWI into the 21st century.

This is one reason I think any German victory won't be as decisive as one would expect at first. Germany will be forced to deal with the unrest after the end of World War One in Europe before they can get serious about colonial adventures, particularly with an unconquered British Empire still in the mix, not to mention the United States and Japan.

[ericthered]

On the other hand, a victorious Germany will actually do something about that mess. It won't necessarily be good, but the region will end up a great deal more stable. And given that that the splintering of the region killed its economy, it would likely be more prosperous as well, from a pure economic standpoint. Of course, this is all for the benefit of the germans, so a lot of that wealth will just flow across open borders, stable governments, and unified rail gauges to the pockets of wealthy aristocrats in Berlin.