World War 1 was the Event, wich shapped our world into what it is today. But what would happend, if the Centralpowers (Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire) somehow won? How do you think, it would have turned out in a long shot for the World? I actually asking myself for a long time, what would happen.

6044662
In many ways, a Victory for the Central Powers in WWI would have created a similar political landscape as in our timeline. France, having now lost yet another war to the newly formed united Germany, was deeply humiliated, and would most likely have to seize even more territory to the germans, causing far-right organizations to gain ground, demanding to bring France back to its former glory, reclaim the occupied territory (Like Alsace and Lorraine) and finally take out the German menace. So, in France, it would most likely be an extremely anti-German political landscape.

In Britain, bankcruptcy would cause the Empire to break apart, with more and more countries gaining independence and the british only able to hold onto small, rather unimportant parts of their former colonies. It is quite possible that during this time of bankcruptcy and political turmoil, fascists or communists could gain ground and popularity, both sides promising to rescue britain from corruption and monetary destruction. Fascists would most likely ally with the germans eventually, as Fascists (Like Mosley) would be eager to reclaim their empire once more, while the german Kaiser had colonial ambitions as well.

America, in any case, would never have joined the war, seeing as how the only way for germany to win WWI is if the USA never joined/If they defeated France and/or Britain before they could join. Because of this, America falls into an even deeper phase of isolationism, scared to intervene in any european or asian affairs.

Austria-Hungary, while victorious in the war, would inevitably fall apart unless major reforms were made. The same thing goes for the Ottoman Empire, as both empires were multi-ethnic, highly unstable empires by the time.

In Russia, The Bolsheviks would have still taken over and thrown the country into a civil war. The treaty of Brest-Litovsk would have still been signed, closing the eastern front for the central powers, pulling russia out of the war and seizing major territory to Germany and Austria-Hungary.#

tl:dr = It would have brought down the two major democracies in europe, France and Britain, and shown to many that Authoritarian regimes like Germany and Austria were still effective. Democracy would become a much less popular choice for me overall, and the need for a strong, smart leader is stronger than the demand to vote in democratic elections.

6044662
It woud be peacefull thats a fact if one man Rule in stead of many.

6044705 One man, one vote. Once.

The hard part is to define just what a WWI 'victory' for the Axis powers would have been. Taking over all of France? Netherlands? Sweden? The voice of the military dictator is "I only want the country next to me" so you need to consider just where the boundries would have been drawn.

Say for example a fascist Spain allied with but not taken over by Germany, getting a chunk out of France in exchange, while German forces dominate or ally with every other major European country. Russia would still exist in this AU, since only the insane invade the crazy, but smaller with some outlying portions nipped off. Since that leaves an empire butted up against the Ottoman Empire, which would be in a state of constant turmoil, Britian (same) and Russia (same), it might be considered to be a stable source of civilization for the continent as long as it remains united.

6044662
No, it would not at all. One of the main events that lead up to WW1 was Prussian victory in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War and the many similar German victories around that time. Nor would Germany be able to actually occupy or put down either France or England, as both (particularly the former) would just be more bitter and want to start another war. Nor would it dampen England's control of the seas or destroy their empires. In realistic terms all it would do is ensure the survival of the German Empire and would essentially mean the opposite, many more wars between the European empires as had been the norm for centuries before.

6044681
This here is where we must notice the separation between possibility and probability, as this feels more like creating a timeline rather than finding the most likely probable outcome.

France, having now lost yet another war to the newly formed united Germany, was deeply humiliated, and would most likely have to seize even more territory to the germans, causing far-right organizations to gain ground, demanding to bring France back to its former glory, reclaim the occupied territory (Like Alsace and Lorraine) and finally take out the German menace. So, in France, it would most likely be an extremely anti-German political landscape.

All of this was already well in place even before WW1. The French not only planned but enacted attempts to forcibly retake Alsace-Lorraine at the start of the war. Even as the Germans were rolling through Belgium they launched offensives and were defeated in the Battle of the Frontiers.

In Britain, bankcruptcy would cause the Empire to break apart,

Absolutely not, England faced hefty finances in our timeline after WW1 and actually gained more land. Even if Germany was victorious on the Western Front they have no ability to enact force overseas like Britain did. The breakup of the Empire in the 50s-60s was from hefty monetary losses from WW2, actually losing many said colonies in WW2 like Singapore, and the general wave of decolonization of the time that put more emphasis in giving random colonies independence rather than fixing them or drawing them up based on better divides.

It is quite possible that during this time of bankcruptcy and political turmoil, fascists or communists could gain ground and popularity, both sides promising to rescue britain from corruption and monetary destruction.

I'd say it's unlikely at least from the Communist standpoint; Britain was the first nation to ring the alarm bell about Communism.

America, in any case, would never have joined the war, seeing as how the only way for germany to win WWI is if the USA never joined/If they defeated France and/or Britain before they could join.

There'd have to be some pretty off reasons for America not joining the war.

Because of this, America falls into an even deeper phase of isolationism, scared to intervene in any european or asian affairs.

'Scared' is an awful word to use as it not only misrepresents the mood but also shows as incorrect. America may have been isolationist but it had no problem in getting involved in affairs elsewhere, particularly in Asia or Central America. We had just fought the Spanish-American War to a decisive victory and Theodore Roosevelt was already having the Great White Fleet sail around the world to show America's new industrial power. Even after WW1 when we became even more isolationist, the root of our conflict with Japan came over their invasions of China and interference with trade.

Austria-Hungary, while victorious in the war, would inevitably fall apart unless major reforms were made. The same thing goes for the Ottoman Empire, as both empires were multi-ethnic, highly unstable empires by the time.

This is actually probably accurate.

In Russia, The Bolsheviks would have still taken over and thrown the country into a civil war.

With a victorious Germany? Not likely, considering the Germans set up several satellite states in Poland and eastern Europe. The Imperial Germans hated Communism just as much as the rest of the world and it'd probably see some kind of German military mission to combat them. Even if they did take power, you'd see another Imperial German-young Soviet Russia war within a few years over Lenin's world revolution rhetoric and revolutionary rhetoric aimed heavily at Germany as in our timeline. That is a war the Soviets would not win.

6044741
What I said would depend on how you define “A German Victory” and how the war went along. There are many different scenarios, such as Italy joining the Central Powers instead of the Entente or Germany not using the Schlieffen Plan, alas not invading Belgium and giving Britain a prompt reason to be pulled into the war.

I do see your point though, and that not all I said was ‘likely’ to happen. But hey, Germany winning in the first place is an alternate-timeline and you would have to bend history in a way or another to give them the possibility to win in the first place.

6044662

6044662
See above video for a peaceful resolution, for a more interesting one, see the Kaiserreich Mod.

6044746
Aye, there's a billion different timelines but the main issue is that the question being asked must lie in the most probable timeline. Very many times I'll see people create some timeline that's far more improbable simple because it's cooler (or they want to reinforce their point) but they're not probable. To be honest the more probable timelines are a lot less different than people think.

6044889
All this really does is reinforce my belief that pop-historians on youtube have never read books.

6045242
Might I ask why you get that impression? Seems decently solid to me.

6044924
Kaiserreich? Odd way of spelling "God of All Mods"...

6045305
Kaiserreich? More like “Worst of all Mods”.

6045405
U fuckin' wot, m8?!

6045480
U heard me m8

Road to 56 is commonly known as best mod
That, and player-lead peace conferences. A god’s sent.

6045498
HERETIC

I like Road to 56, too

6045498
Oh yeah player lead peace conferences is amazing keeping the AI from taking my rightfully conquered territory.

6044662
The only thing that would've happened would've been the events of 1919-1939 occurring in reverse, given that Kaiser Wilhelm made no secret of his hatred of Great Britain, and his desire to see the German Empire expand, so really all that would probably have changed would be Britain and France having to endure the Treaty of Versailles, and the resulting second world war the major difference would be the Allies of World War II would be the ones under totalitarian states. In the case of Russia, Germany would've probably contributed more to the effort to oust Lenin, and would've probably restored the Romanov Dynasty or the First Russian Republic. Of course all of this hinges on one thing: Kaiser Wilhelm maintaining power, and not being deposed