IIRC the problem was the proposed Habsburg was basically rolled over by the more militant Poles, so wasn't turning out to be as useful as thought.
Whom did they want instead?
IIRC the problem was the proposed Habsburg was basically rolled over by the more militant Poles, so wasn't turning out to be as useful as thought.
A Republic IIRC. IOTL it looked like the only option was a constitutional monarchy was on the table for them, which they accepted, but refused to elect a king until given more autonomy...which Germany refused to grant so the entire process fell apart:Whom did they want instead?
A Republic IIRC. IOTL it looked like the only option was a constitutional monarchy was on the table for them, which they accepted, but refused to elect a king until given more autonomy...which Germany refused to grant so the entire process fell apart:
Kingdom of Poland (1917–1918) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Zionists no, since they effectively didn't get the state they wanted, the English played them.Interesting.
BTW, off-topic, but is it fair to say that the main winners of WWI were the Poles, Romanians, Serbs, Czechoslovaks, Zionists, and maybe Americans? Here's how I see it:
-Poles: Got their independence back
-Romanians: Completed their national unification project
-Serbs: Same as for the Romanians, though less sustainable in the long(er)-run
-Czechoslovaks: Got their independence
-Zionists: Got a real chance to eventually create a Jewish state in Palestine for the first time in centuries
-Americans: Lost relatively little in WWI but became the world's main financial hub
In contrast, out of all of the other countries that participated in World War I, little was to be gained even in victory. At best, in victory, France, Germany, and Russia could expect to gain some minor territorial concessions and a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.
Zionists no, since they effectively didn't get the state they wanted, the English played them.
I suppose you could make the argument about the rest, but the fallout of WW2 really screwed a lot of those groups.
Yup. Don't forget the massive trauma of the survivors that was passed on to kids; there was a massive explosion of violence and serial killers in the children of the WW2 (and Korean war and Vietnam war) generation that caused massive social problems in the US.Yep, everyone got fucked over in the end other than the Americans. Well, the Zionists did ultimately get their own state, but at too high of a cost in lives. It just wasn't worth it. I'd rather have an additional 6+ million surviving Jews and no Jewish state at all than the other way around!
And even the Americans lost a lot of their young men's lives in WWII!
Yup. Don't forget the massive trauma of the survivors that was passed on to kids; there was a massive explosion of violence and serial killers in the children of the WW2 (and Korean war and Vietnam war) generation that caused massive social problems in the US.
Do you have a link for this, please?
Interesting.
BTW, off-topic, but is it fair to say that the main winners of WWI were the Poles, Romanians, Serbs, Czechoslovaks, Zionists, and maybe Americans? Here's how I see it:
-Poles: Got their independence back
-Romanians: Completed their national unification project
-Serbs: Same as for the Romanians, though less sustainable in the long(er)-run
-Czechoslovaks: Got their independence
-Zionists: Got a real chance to eventually create a Jewish state in Palestine for the first time in centuries
-Americans: Lost relatively little in WWI but became the world's main financial hub
In contrast, out of all of the other countries that participated in World War I, little was to be gained even in victory. At best, in victory, France, Germany, and Russia could expect to gain some minor territorial concessions and a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.
The colonies Japan took are gone, but like OTL the Japanese have to pay for them.
We'd see no Bolshevism
I was looking for details and apparently misremebered. Can't find any info online about it.The Japanese in OTL had to pay compensation to Germany for the colonies seized from Germany in Micronesia and/or Tsingtao? I'd never heard of that.
It was a very unique set of circumstances that even let the Bolsheviks seize power in St. Petersburg in the first place, unlikely to be in play ITTL. Plus of course the chance for the CPs to toss them out if needed.Why so? Because you figure the writing on the wall for German success would be so clear the Russians would quit before the Bolsheviks take over, or because you figure the Germans will turn the Bolsheviks out of power once the main war with the Entente is over?
What if the US would have remained neutral in WWI and thus the Entente would have gotten no unsecured loans from the US from 1917 onwards? A great way to do this would be for Germany to delay the decision on resuming USW for an additional several months, after which point it would have already become unnecessary.
Anyway, with the Entente's financial situation being much more dire in this scenario, could we actually see a pro-CP compromise peace in 1917 or, at the very latest, 1918 in this TL? I know that already in 1917, there were some prominent voices in favor of a compromise peace, such as the German Reichstag (with its Peace Resolution), the Russian Provisional Government, Kaiser Karl, and the Pope.
What do you think about this?