How would Europe look if the central powers had won or fought to a draw, would there have been a second world war, rise of the nazi party and cold war and so on?
>nazi
You mean National Socialist.
They never called themselves "nazi". It's a term coined after the war by the Jews in an attempt to demonize Germany.
>>959263
well, I thought they did as it is "Nationalsozialismus" in german, there for Na-zi, but I may very well be wrong
>>959263
http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/629454?list_url=%2Flist%3Fq%255Bdate_range_end%255D%3D1945-09-30%2525q%255Bdate_range_start%255D%3D1939-09-01%2525q%255Bquery%255D%3Dnazi%2525q%255Bsearch_method%255D%3DAll%2BWords
>April 6, 1941
Which war was it after?
>>959263
Which part of "The Greatest Story Never Told" did they mention that bullshit, anon? Or do you believe everything you've been told?
hindsight is 20/20, but a central powers victory would've just been a simple land grab, much like the Entente victory.
You still would have seen the rise of hypernationalist policies across Europe, but probably would have taken root in the defeated allies (especially France), rather than Germany.
But the Central Powers plans for carving up Europe was pretty straightforward.
Ottomans gain back lands they lost to England, Russia, and Italy
Germans get Belgium as a puppet state, as well as annex Russian/Polish/Baltic lands
and Austria Hungary and Bulgaria assume nominal control of the Balkans.
>>959287
thanks mate, do you believe that there still would be a world war 2?
>>959287
why is crimea controlled by the jerries?
It's hard to say. Germany would come out with unrivaled power, but I don't think victory could have saved the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires. They were too dysfunctional by the point.
You might have had another was similar to WWII where France, England, and Russia work together to put down a dominant Germany, but Germany would start from a stronger position.
>>959353
>>959373
In a sense would you say that ww2 or a big conflict was "destined" to happen? and if so when did the chain start leading up to it? French revolution? Rothchilds?
>>959254
The question is too imprecise to lend itself to a definite answer. Consider the following scenarios, all of which would fit the criteria for your OP question.
>Schlieffen plan works brilliantly, Germans overrun France by the end of 1914, Britain is unable to transfer forces to fight in Northern Europe effectively, Germany transfers the bulk of her forces to Russia, kicks the crap out of everyone, goes home happy.
>Schlieffen plan fails, you have a battle like the Marne more or less historically, but by the end of November 1914, everyone decides honor is satisfied, and you agree to a Status Quo Ante Bellum by all major powers in the conflict.
>After the collapse of Russia and Germany's transferring of forces over, the Spring Offensive is far more successful than it was historically, and France folds at that point.
>America never joins the war. By 1918, morale is at rock bottom just about everywhere. England, France, and Germany all have successful revolutionary movements, not necessarily taking over the governments in question, but being able to field armies of their own that can stand up to things, and the external war grinds to a halt to concentrate on internal matters, which have gotten real bad.
All 4 would lead to radically different outcomes. A lot of what made WW1 the horror show we know of historically is the advent of industrialized war applied between relatively equal powers, and the enormous amounts of resources and manpower that would have to be fed into the meat grinder to achieve any kind of advance. If you take that away, you get a very different picture, no matter who wins.
World War Two was inevitable as long as nations thought in terms of empires. Different tens of millions would have died, different peoples would have been victims of genocide, but genocide itself was inevitable.
People had lost sight of humanity over time. With such concept, ethnic cleansing and genocide were inescapable.
>>959417
Well who knows what would've happened
>>959430
like others say WW2 probably would've been WW1 mk2 empires vs empires instead of capitalism/democracy vs communism vs national socialism.
But then of course change that and well Hitler and co would probably be more content in that Germany was proud and victorious and not being destitute and poor making the useless politicians exposed.
>>959420
I guess whats I wonder most is how the people in Germany would be affected, would they be "driven" to war again, would hitler be able to sieze power without "Stab-in-the-back myth" and the huge reparations they were forced to pay?
>>959441
And again, that itself will hinge upon how much death, destruction, payment, length, privation on the home front, and propaganda is getting kicked around, all of which increases the longer the war lasts, and quite a bit of the same resentment will crop up even if Germany "wins" a long, bloody war.
And don't forget, that if you flip things around, make Germany win, you'll likely have revanchist elements elsewhere in Europe, especially France. Germany doesn't have to be the one to start the next war.
>>959441
If the Ottoman Empire survived and kept Palestine (along with the rest of the Fertile Crescent) then Zionist settlement wouldn't have been possible. Assuming--as is plausible--that a victorious Germany wouldn't be anti-Semitic, then for the Yiddish-speaking Jews fleeing poverty and oppression in central and eastern Europe, Germany would have been a natural destination, instead of Palestine
>>959263
This. Nazi is also a short for Ignaz and it pretty much means "dumbass", it was coined by the anti-Hitler press in Weimar republic.
It's like the whole "Donald Drumpf" shit.
>>959793
Best possible outcome would have been if in the space of four days Germany had not;
Declared war on Russia
Declared war on France
Invaded Belgium
WWI would be a footnote in history books as the six month Serbian conflict.
>>959852
It would have became even better if the Austrians had actually listened to Serbia's counter offer of agreeing on everything that wouldn't make them a puppet.
Though Austria needed its war, for a variety of reasons.
>>959263
piss off /pol/
>>959263
While I do not have any reason if you actually are a national socialist or not, why will the same people who happily call others niggers and kikes get butt-hurt whenever someone says "Nazi"?
>>959254
It depends on when do they won. Three scenarios:
>Germany destroys the BEF at Mons.
The French stand at the Marne alone and loses, France capitulates in 1915, with Germany sending the bulk of the Army east to maximizes their gains before Russia capitulates too, possibility of the Ottomans, Italy, Romania and Bulgaria jumping on the war earlier on the CP side.
In this outcome, Germany annexes Belgian Luxembourg, the regions of Verdun, Briey-Longwy and Belfort from France and carves puppets in Poland and the Baltics. Austria-Hungary annexes the Montenegrin coast and a border strip from Serbia (incl. Belgrade).
>Germany wins the race to the sea, completely occupying Belgium, capturing the Channel Ports and Amiens.
The war of attrition slides sightly to the Germans' favor, without their coal and industrial lands and the logistical hub of Amiens, the French are even more desperate for British aid, unless America comes sooner, London will rran out of money pretty fast, Germany wins on favorable terms (parts of France and puppets in the East, etc.) but have to abandon Belgium.
>The US doesn't join.
Germany has less pressure to attack the West and can organize their last offensive with calm, they succeed in capturing Amiens and Barleduc, both sides are exhausted and a compromise peace happens, favorable to Britain, Germany and Bulgaria, but by then A-H and the Ottomans are doomed.
>>960106
>>959254
>would there have been a second world war
A second match is avoidable, but hardly. That "Nazi France mirroring Hitler" is pretty much a meme that is discredited in AH circles, in any scenario France is much weaker, robbed from its natural wealth located on the border, whereas Nazi Germany had all the German natural and industrial might on their side, also France lost to the Germans twice in a row, this time with half of the world on their side.
That side, in any scenario Germany is unable to break the RN supremacy on the seas, so Britain is untouched, a clash of those is inevitable, be it indirectly (Cold War), or directly (World War II).
>rise of the nazi party
Nope, without the "shame" of Versailles and with the monarchy not discredited, the Nazis wouldn't have a chance to be nothing more than a fringe party (if they even exist).
>>959420
>America never joins the war. By 1918, morale is at rock bottom just about everywhere. England, France, and Germany all have successful revolutionary movements, not necessarily taking over the governments in question, but being able to field armies of their own that can stand up to things, and the external war grinds to a halt to concentrate on internal matters, which have gotten real bad.
I was always of the impression that America not joining the war would have resulted in a successful Spring Offensive or something similar. No American entry is a fairly common PoD for Alt History.
>>960123
Thanks mate, thats the kind of answers I looking for.
Sort of related does anyone know any "Speculative history" book, where the author asks "what ifs"?
>>959254
Europe would look and feel quite same as it now
>>959254
See Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg. It's realistic in Europe but America and China are far-fetched.
>>960753
You might like For Want of a Nail by Robert Sobel. It's more alt history than speculative history, but it does the neat thing of being written like nonfiction with a bunch of fictional footnotes and citations.
I think Niall Ferguson also went into speculative history in one of his books, but I can't remember which one.
>>960753
"What if?" by Cowley.
