You can cumulatively alter three events in 20th century European history; which events do you alter?

[WolfBear]

As for me:

1. Have the Whites win the Russian Civil War.
2. Have the Poles be more successful in their post-World War I war with Russia, allowing them to expand up to the Dnieper River and create nominally independent pro-Polish Ukrainian and Belarusian puppet states.
3. Have Adolf Hitler get killed in 1923.

 

[WolfBear]

If one wants a Central Powers victory in World War I, as @History Learner might want to my knowledge, then in place in event #3, one could have Romania avoid entering World War I in 1916, which could result in Erich von Falkenhayn keeping his job as the head/chief of the German military and thus in Germany avoiding the launching of USW in early 1917 and in avoiding bringing the US into WWI. Due to their dire financial situation, the Allies should be compelled to negotiate peace by late 1917 or so.

 

[WolfBear]

As for me:

1. Have the Whites win the Russian Civil War.
2. Have the Poles be more successful in their post-World War I war with Russia, allowing them to expand up to the Dnieper River and create nominally independent pro-Polish Ukrainian and Belarusian puppet states.
3. Have Adolf Hitler get killed in 1923.

This scenario would actually be a huge Russia-wank. Russia would avoid decades of Nazi and Communist demographic devastation as well as economic stagnation AND remove most Ukrainian nationalists from within its borders, thus making the remainder of Russia much less vulnerable to an eventual USSR-style collapse.

 

[Skallagrim]

Okay, having given it some thought...

Number 1: Have the Germans scrap all plans for fleet expansion as of the earliest possible moment in the 20th century. All potential investments to go into the army instead.

Number 2: Have the Germans, in the knowledge that their colonial empire is a net money drain, offer to sell the German colonies to Britain on the cheap. This removes the perception of Germany as a colonial competitor to Britain.

Number 3: Have the Germans ditch their existing war plans, and have them instead develop an 'East first' strategy for the coming war. Effort must be taken to conceal this plan, up to and including efforts to make it appear as if Germany will most likely pursue a 'France first' strategy. Yet in reality, the plan must be to fight a purely defensive war in the West (never violating Belgian neutrality), and move to knock out Russia quickly.

The goal of these changes is to avoid British entry into the Great War, by removing the two foremost motivations for this, as well as OTL's casus belli. From an outside perspective, the war mostly looks like an Austria-versus-Russia match, with Germany standing by its closest ally, and France stepping in primarily to exact vengeance on Germany (instead of any real desire to help Russia).

I expect the overall result to be a war that ends in a CP victory, in early 1916 at the latest. We avoid the USSR, we avoid the death of multiple monarchies, we avoid Germany being humiliated and bled dry, we avoid Austria-Hungary being cut to pieces, we avoid the Ottoman Empire being dismembered, we avoid the seeds of the British Empire's shameful implosion, we avoid US involvement (and thus the seeds of the USA attempting to be the world's policeman), we avoid a whole generation dying in pointless trench warfare, we avoid the worst of the Great Depression (there'll still be a serious down-turn, but much less dramatic), and avoid Hitler and his goons, too.

Meanwhile, we gain an independent Balticum (a country in personal union with Germany, under the Kaiser), an independent Finland (with a Hohenzollern monarch), an independent Ukraine (with a Hohenzollern monarch), an independent Poland (potentially with a Habsburg monarch because Catholic?) and a defeated French Republic (with seriously good chances of a monarchist restoration).

 

[Earl]

Number 2: Have the Germans, in the knowledge that their colonial empire is a net money drain, offer to sell the German colonies to Britain on the cheap. This removes the perception of Germany as a colonial competitor to Britain.

Also hopefully stopping a Genocide or two, see Namibia.

defeated French Republic (with seriously good chances of a monarchist restoration).

Whose first order of Buissness will be to go “REVANCHE” on Germany, this being the French Right of the time.0 Any restoration is likely going to have a lot of “We will redeem ourself”.

Now my personal take:

1. Kerensky holds on and manages to get Russia into a mostly Stable Republic. No Communism, No Autocracy and No Civil war. Stills screws over Ukraine (no way Russia let’s them out if they peace out early, the only reason the Germans got that was the Bolsheviks being dumb) but what can you do. kills Nazism before it ever develops, and Kills Communism as well.

2.Eliminate the Pro Choice Movement by sending various people else where.

3. Make the Catholic Church Structurally more serious on dealing with the Pedophile problem, unlike the utter shame and disgrace of OTL.

There, I belive I’ve made a better world right out of the gate. Prevent the totalitarian murder states of OTL while still allowing the positive forces to develop, albeit force the Colonial powers out more slowly. The church is more respected and millions of children aren’t slaughtered. A Utopia? No. Better than OTL? Certainly

 

[Skallagrim]

Whose first order of Buissness will be to go “REVANCHE” on Germany, this being the French Right of the time.0 Any restoration is likely going to have a lot of “We will redeem ourself”.

It's possible, but consider that the main reason the royalist movement would be able to take back power would be anger over the Republic having utterly humiliated itself in the war. Being the war faction may not be the smart move.

Meanwhile, if they put me on the throne in Germany around this time, I'd respond the the restoration in France by returning the Francophone region of Alsace-Lorraine to France. The idea there, obviously, is that "we would never surrender land to the Republic, but these are loyal French subjects of the KIng, and it is proper they are returned into the arms of their sovereign."

If you're already the faction critisising the last war, and then your arrival into power immediately leads to territorial gains without violence, it's pretty difficult (and stupid) to start calling for war. Better to call yourself a big winner and quitely forget all about those German-majority regions you didn't get.

Besides, the last war was fought without Britain, and looks like a colossal French fuck-up in hindsight. The Franco-Prussian War debacle all over again. So another war is about certain to not have Britain joining you. They'd be extra wary to join anyone stupid enough to try the same mistake for the third time now. For the new monarchist regime, then, it's smarter to say that the Franco-Prussian War birthed the Third Republic, the Great War killed the Third Republic... and now, that foolish chapter is closed.

 

[Earl]

It's possible, but consider that the main reason the royalist movement would be able to take back power would be anger over the Republic having utterly humiliated itself in the war. Being the war faction may not be the smart move.

Meanwhile, if they put me on the throne in Germany around this time, I'd respond the the restoration in France by returning the Francophone region of Alsace-Lorraine to France. The idea there, obviously, is that "we would never surrender land to the Republic, but these are loyal French subjects of the KIng, and it is proper they are returned into the arms of their sovereign."

If you're already the faction critisising the last war, and then your arrival into power immediately leads to territorial gains without violence, it's pretty difficult (and stupid) to start calling for war. Better to call yourself a big winner and quitely forget all about those German-majority regions you didn't get.

Besides, the last war was fought without Britain, and looks like a colossal French fuck-up in hindsight. The Franco-Prussian War debacle all over again. So another war is about certain to not have Britain joining you. They'd be extra wary to join anyone stupid enough to try the same mistake for the third time now. For the new monarchist regime, then, it's smarter to say that the Franco-Prussian War birthed the Third Republic, the Great War killed the Third Republic... and now, that foolish chapter is closed.

Mmmm, Thats fair but I do see two problems here:

1. You arent the German Kaiser, who is probably not going to have the same mindset, and even if you were, you have to deal with an Nationalist Establishment who does. Germany wasnt a absolute monarchy before the war, more a constituional monarchy with more power than wed consider prescient for the monarchy and a indepdent minded military establishment.

2. You arent the French Right, particualy not the Monarchist Right. The smart move for Hitler to make would of been to just gorge on all the German speaking regions he could of gotten and then just build a Anti Communist block. He didnt, because he had deeply rooted ideological desires of conquest. Of course there are big diffrences here, mainly in that you dont have one Adolf Hitler in command. His gambling drove Germany in a direction the Establishment did not want to go. Question is, does the French have this leader?


Also leads me to thinking of ways if I was the French Id do this war over again:

1. Build up an Maginot Line while building a force ready to go Blitzkreieg (Degaulle, go have fun!).

2. Build my alliances with both Italy (still wants that Austrian Clay) and Russia, who is most likely revanchist at this time over the failure to win last time around, especially if Im the Tzarist Autocracy whose legitimacy is drawn from leadership of the Slavic world.

3. Build a Intel network among the numerous nationalists in Austria Hungry, then prep them with weapons and the like.

4. Convince Britian that I will be a better freind to British Interests on the continent than Germany as I split up their power on the continet. The Brits just did not like a dominating power on the continet in Principle, so Germany split three diffrent ways between me, Italy and Russia works quite well.

5. Wait for something convenient (Outrage in Alsace Lorraine, or the Germans having to go crush a Rebellion in say Poland), then activate my three-pronged plan by imploding Austria, going deep into Germany from both Alsace and Austria, boxing in the Germans from three sides.

6. Divide Europe between us all, I take Western Germany, Russia gets all its shit back and extras and Italy gets to play king maker in the Balkans.


Now will all this work? Quite possibly not, but it is a viable strategy which a French goverment could try.

 

[Agent23]

Okay, having given it some thought...

Number 1: Have the Germans scrap all plans for fleet expansion as of the earliest possible moment in the 20th century. All potential investments to go into the army instead.

At least a quarter to a third of the funds should go towards U-Boats, instead.
One of the biggest problems with the U-Boat program was that the regular navy was getting all the money, and workers involved in U-Boat construction were not given a waver where press-ganging was concerned.

There is no other real counter to British naval might otherwise, and it has been long-standing British policy to try and keep Europe divided, Germany becoming top dog would not help them, and a lot of people in the British Foreign Office, like
Edward Grey, Crowe of the eponymous Crowe memorandum and Lord Curzon had a raging hate-boner for the Germans, as did King George V, who despised them on account of his German tutor, IIRC.

Any general war in Europe post the Berlin Congress will somehow have the British participate, it is not a question of 'if' but of 'when' and of 'what goddamned excuse should we use to plunge in'.

 

[WolfBear]

It's possible, but consider that the main reason the royalist movement would be able to take back power would be anger over the Republic having utterly humiliated itself in the war. Being the war faction may not be the smart move.

Meanwhile, if they put me on the throne in Germany around this time, I'd respond the the restoration in France by returning the Francophone region of Alsace-Lorraine to France. The idea there, obviously, is that "we would never surrender land to the Republic, but these are loyal French subjects of the KIng, and it is proper they are returned into the arms of their sovereign."

If you're already the faction critisising the last war, and then your arrival into power immediately leads to territorial gains without violence, it's pretty difficult (and stupid) to start calling for war. Better to call yourself a big winner and quitely forget all about those German-majority regions you didn't get.

Besides, the last war was fought without Britain, and looks like a colossal French fuck-up in hindsight. The Franco-Prussian War debacle all over again. So another war is about certain to not have Britain joining you. They'd be extra wary to join anyone stupid enough to try the same mistake for the third time now. For the new monarchist regime, then, it's smarter to say that the Franco-Prussian War birthed the Third Republic, the Great War killed the Third Republic... and now, that foolish chapter is closed.

FWIW, most of Alsace-Lorraine actually spoke German rather than French as a first language:




So, only the western part of it can really be given back to France, unless of course you want to hold a plebiscite in all of it, but then again, victorious Germans might be unwilling to tolerate ths.

 

[History Learner]

If one wants a Central Powers victory in World War I, as @History Learner might want to my knowledge, then in place in event #3, one could have Romania avoid entering World War I in 1916, which could result in Erich von Falkenhayn keeping his job as the head/chief of the German military and thus in Germany avoiding the launching of USW in early 1917 and in avoiding bringing the US into WWI. Due to their dire financial situation, the Allies should be compelled to negotiate peace by late 1917 or so.

Ideally I'd have Russia and Germany come to an understanding on the basis of the Bjorko Treaty and we avoid World War I as we know it in favor of localized Great Power wars, with Tsarist Russia giving the Ottomans the boot sometime in the 1910s and Japan in the 1920s. Germany, meanwhile, deals with France at some point. Also, just because it's me, Germany meddling in the Mexican Civil War sufficiently destabilizes the nation as to engender an American occupation and pathway to annexation.

 

[Skallagrim]

Mmmm, Thats fair but I do see two problems here:

1. You arent the German Kaiser, who is probably not going to have the same mindset, and even if you were, you have to deal with an Nationalist Establishment who does. Germany wasnt a absolute monarchy before the war, more a constituional monarchy with more power than wed consider prescient for the monarchy and a indepdent minded military establishment.

2. You arent the French Right, particualy not the Monarchist Right. The smart move for Hitler to make would of been to just gorge on all the German speaking regions he could of gotten and then just build a Anti Communist block. He didnt, because he had deeply rooted ideological desires of conquest. Of course there are big diffrences here, mainly in that you dont have one Adolf Hitler in command. His gambling drove Germany in a direction the Establishment did not want to go. Question is, does the French have this leader?

It's true that I'm not in their shoes, and I'm not expecting Wilhelm II to do the reasonable thing. Of course, given the three points I suggested, a more reasonable Wilhelm has to be a given for that to even happen, so there's that...

As for the French droite, I do expect them to be more realistic than you suggested initially. Most regimes do, in fact, have a pretty reasonable sense of their position. After a monarchist restoration, France would be facing far-left terrorism. A lot of it. They wouldn't be very stable for the immediate future. This can go two ways: one is that someone like a Pinochet or a Franco seizes power, the other is that someone like Hitler seizes power. I consider the latter to be vastly less likely. Even if it does happen, though, and a "French Hitler" arises... how well would he do, compared to OTL Nazi Germany? If we look at France and Germany one-on-one, it's evident that Germany was stronger -- in both world wars. So an isolated France, trying to "pull a Hitler"? I see that going very wrong for them....

Also leads me to thinking of ways if I was the French Id do this war over again:

1. Build up an Maginot Line while building a force ready to go Blitzkreieg (Degaulle, go have fun!).

I disagree. That's an attempt to fight the last war, which is precisely why France lost so quickly in 1940 in OTL. I'd avoid over-reliance on static defences, and try to use a far more mobile strategy, much as the Mongols once used: leave openings for your enemy to breach, guide him into a pocket, and slaughter him. That's the only decent way to break up the Blitzkrieging Germans. Use their excessive speed against them to cut the advancing forces off from adequate support.

Letting De Gaulle (or whoever) fight his own, uh, guerre éclair, will probably end up quite a bit like Lee's Gettysburg campaign. Very impressive, but you can't keep up the logistics for that, when your enemy is actually dominant when it comes to the offensive, and is presently invading France. What's De Gaulle going to do? March all the way to Berlin and hope to get there before the German tanks reach Paris? Not exactly credible.

To beat the Germans here, you'd instead have to pull a modern version of what the ancient Germans did to Varus and his legions.

2. Build my alliances with both Italy (still wants that Austrian Clay) and Russia, who is most likely revanchist at this time over the failure to win last time around, especially if Im the Tzarist Autocracy whose legitimacy is drawn from leadership of the Slavic world.

This would work, presumably.

3. Build a Intel network among the numerous nationalists in Austria Hungry, then prep them with weapons and the like.

Attempts of these nature have often failed pretty dramatically. I wouldn't put my faith in this.

4. Convince Britian that I will be a better freind to British Interests on the continent than Germany as I split up their power on the continet. The Brits just did not like a dominating power on the continet in Principle, so Germany split three diffrent ways between me, Italy and Russia works quite well.

In this timeline, France is perceived as the lunatic power that attacked Germany and escalated the last war for no good reason, motivated by pure spite. And then lost. Now, you suggest, France wants to try again? And it wants Britain to join the "two-times losers club"?

Germany might be looking a bit powerful, sure, but the league of frothy-mouthed revanchists is not a better alternative.

5. Wait for something convenient (Outrage in Alsace Lorraine, or the Germans having to go crush a Rebellion in say Poland), then activate my three-pronged plan by imploding Austria, going deep into Germany from both Alsace and Austria, boxing in the Germans from three sides.

There was no outrage in Alsace Lorraine in OTL, as far as I know. And why would the Germans have to crush a rebellion in Poland? Given the varios other countries that would have received Hohenzollerns on the throne, I think Poland would be put under a Catholic Habsburg. While far from ideal, this would be a massive improvement for the Poles, who'd remember what it was like being part of Russia. With Russia on the French side, the consequences for Poland of a German defeat are glaringly obvious: back under the Russian yoke! They'll fight under the Kaiser's flag before letting that happen.

6. Divide Europe between us all, I take Western Germany, Russia gets all its shit back and extras and Italy gets to play king maker in the Balkans.

That's a nice dream.

 

[WolfBear]

Ideally I'd have Russia and Germany come to an understanding on the basis of the Bjorko Treaty and we avoid World War I as we know it in favor of localized Great Power wars, with Tsarist Russia giving the Ottomans the boot sometime in the 1910s and Japan in the 1920s. Germany, meanwhile, deals with France at some point. Also, just because it's me, Germany meddling in the Mexican Civil War sufficiently destabilizes the nation as to engender an American occupation and pathway to annexation.

Having Bjorko succeed would have meant having Russia abandon its alliance with France, though, which AFAIK Russia was not prepared to do, in part due to the French loans that this alliance helped provide for Russia.

 

[History Learner]

Having Bjorko succeed would have meant having Russia abandon its alliance with France, though, which AFAIK Russia was not prepared to do, in part due to the French loans that this alliance helped provide for Russia.

My understanding was this thread entailed us being able to change whatever we wanted?

 

[WolfBear]

My understanding was this thread entailed us being able to change whatever we wanted?

It needs to be sufficiently realistic, though. But sure, I suppose that if Nicky will fire enough of his ministers and replace them with new ones, then he might be able to get this done. Still, it's going to be costly for him, and Russia has already just experienced a revolution. So, he could probably do it, but his popularity could suffer even further.

 

[History Learner]

It needs to be sufficiently realistic, though. But sure, I suppose that if Nicky will fire enough of his ministers and replace them with new ones, then he might be able to get this done. Still, it's going to be costly for him, and Russia has already just experienced a revolution. So, he could probably do it, but his popularity could suffer even further.

Overall, avoiding World War I in some way and trying to ensure decent relations between Germany and Russia would be my goal.

 

[WolfBear]

Overall, avoiding World War I in some way and trying to ensure decent relations between Germany and Russia would be my goal.

Yeah, that makes sense, and honestly, WWI was atrocious for both of these countries. The only good thing was that it resulted in their monarchies being abolished, though in the long(er)-run, what replaced them (Nazism and Communism) was much worse than these monarchies themselves were.

 

[History Learner]

Yeah, that makes sense, and honestly, WWI was atrocious for both of these countries. The only good thing was that it resulted in their monarchies being abolished, though in the long(er)-run, what replaced them (Nazism and Communism) was much worse than these monarchies themselves were.

Personally not a Monarchist, but I have a deep respect and admiration for both the Kaiser and Tsar of this era so their ultimate fates always leave me somewhat upset. The 1916 effort to achieve a status quo antebellum between the two is another interesting PoD I think.

 

[WolfBear]

Personally not a Monarchist, but I have a deep respect and admiration for both the Kaiser and Tsar of this era so their ultimate fates always leave me somewhat upset. The 1916 effort to achieve a status quo antebellum between the two is another interesting PoD I think.

Honestly, I suspect that the 1916 attempt never had a realistic chance because it would mean Nicky betraying his Allies even though he was not clearly losing the war at that point in time.

 

[History Learner]

Honestly, I suspect that the 1916 attempt never had a realistic chance because it would mean Nicky betraying his Allies even though he was not clearly losing the war at that point in time.

I don't have a copy of it yet, but I've been hearing excellent reviews of The Road Less Traveled: The Secret Battle to End the Great War, 1916-1917 by Philip Zelikow, which details the serious effort(s) in late 1916 and early 1917-led by the United States-to achieve a peace settlement between both sides in total to end the war. I've seen this brought up in a lot of other works, but this is the first time I know of a work specifically focusing on this episode.

 

[WolfBear]

I don't have a copy of it yet, but I've been hearing excellent reviews of The Road Less Traveled: The Secret Battle to End the Great War, 1916-1917 by Philip Zelikow, which details the serious effort(s) in late 1916 and early 1917-led by the United States-to achieve a peace settlement between both sides in total to end the war. I've seen this brought up in a lot of other words, but this is the first time I know of a work specifically focuses on this episode.

Yeah, I'm aware of the Wilson mediation efforts. AFAIK, though, they didn't actually have very much success because both sides still believed that they could win this war. Maybe if the US would have remained neutral, though, then the Entente would have become more willing to negotiate by late 1917 or early 1918 due to their much more dire financial situation by then.