How likely is World War II to eventually occur if the Central Powers will win World War I?

[Futurist]

If the Central Powers will win World War I, then how likely is World War II to eventually occur afterwards?

Also, for the record, there are several ways to accomplish this task:

-Have France unwittingly "play along with its own demise" in 1914 (similar to what France did in 1940 in real life).
-Have both Britain and the U.S. somehow remain neutral in World War I (such as by having World War I delayed by several months or more and thus causing Britain to become very busy dealing with Ireland starting from late 1914).
-Have Britain enter World War I but refuse to send large amounts of British troops to the Western Front (such as due to Britain being very busy dealing with the mess in Ireland during this time).

Anyway, any thoughts on this? After all, while France's military power is certainly going to be severely crippled in the event of a French defeat in World War I (due to France's loss of resource-rich Briey and Longwy and due to France's massive reparations (to the victorious Central Powers) and the massive limitations on the size of the French military), an anti-German coalition can still theoretically eventually form between Britain, Russia, and the U.S. (just like in World War II between 1941 and 1945 in real life).

[Futurist]

Of course, here is an interesting question--if Germany (permanently) strips Russia of oil-rich Baku after Germany wins World War I, then wouldn't this severely cripple Russia's military power for decades to come?

[maltesefalcon]

Of course, here is an interesting question--if Germany (permanently) strips Russia of oil-rich Baku after Germany wins World War I, then wouldn't this severely cripple Russia's military power for decades to come?

I think that Germany's erstwhile ally the Ottoman Empire would take issue with this.

If you consider the location, it would also very close to British interests, inviting friction with them. Any German forces sent to the area would be somewhat isolated as well.

Besides that, the oil garnered would be useless to Germany, as they have no practical means to get it out of the country if the seizure was contested by the aforementioned parties.

Their only customer would likely be the Russians themselves, who forced to buy on the open market, could get oil from British concerns in Iran or Iraq.

[Futurist]

Of course, here is an interesting question--if Germany (permanently) strips Russia of oil-rich Baku after Germany wins World War I, then wouldn't this severely cripple Russia's military power for decades to come?

1. I think that Germany's erstwhile ally the Ottoman Empire would take issue with this.

2. If you consider the location, it would also very close to British interests, inviting friction with them. Any German forces sent to the area would be somewhat isolated as well.

3. Besides that, the oil garnered would be useless to Germany, as they have no practical means to get it out of the country if the seizure was contested by the aforementioned parties.

4. Their only customer would likely be the Russians themselves, who forced to buy on the open market, could get oil from British concerns in Iran or Iraq.

1. What if the Ottomans will be the ones who will acquire oil-rich Baku, though? After all, Germany can strip Russia of Baku and then give Baku to the Ottoman Empire (presumably in exchange for some oil concessions to Germany).

2. Would the British feel better if Baku ended up being controlled by the Ottomans, though?

3. What about if the Ottomans would have been the ones who would have controlled Baku, though?

4. Would Britain actually be willing to sell a lot of oil to Russia (its traditional rival in Central Asia) after a Central Powers victory in World War I in this scenario, though?

[Futurist]

Indeed, if the Germans were smart, then they would have given the Ottomans a northern border on the Northern Caucasus Mountain range:



That way, the Ottomans would probably have an extremely defensible border with Russia. Of course, this proposal would probably involve relocating the Christians south of the Greater Caucasus, but unfortunately politics doesn't always correlate with humanitarian concerns.

[Futurist]

Also, another good question is this--when (as in, in what year/decade) would a Germany which had been victorious in World War I succeed in building nuclear weapons? After all, a new World War would be extremely unlikely to ever break out if Germany would have already built nuclear weapons in this scenario.

[Futurist]

@stg 44: Any thoughts on this scenario of mine?

[stg 44]

@stg 44: Any thoughts on this scenario of mine?

Of the options in OP only the French screwing up more in 1914 is viable. The British cannot stay out and they will and must send as many men as possible to the continent. Now what is possible can be a lot less than historical if the Germans do better in say the Race to the Sea and end up controlling the Channel Coast to the Somme river. France is badly lamed and Britain now needs to retain a lot of divisions for invasion defense, while the German navy (historically the Flanders corps which including several marine divisions, air units, and naval units) would have a larger swath of land and ports to operate from against Channel shipping and make shipping to London very uncomfortable, probably requiring the evacuation of over 1 million Londoners like in 1940-41.

The French losing harder during the initial campaigns of 1914 would also mean an earlier loss and probably a similar situation to the above. That works even better.

As to the nuke question its really hard to say what would happen if Germany wins early because we don't know who would have survived that would have impacted the science. Nor do we know how the politics and economy would perform to enable funding and research down that path. If there were still tensions after the Entente loses WW1 then Germany probably would have opted to develop one, but it might take until the 1940s, perhaps a few years earlier than historically it happened in the US because the brain trust of Germany isn't broken up by the economic/political/social situation in Germany. A victorious Germany will have its own challenges of politics and what not, but will be far more prosperous having fought and won the war on foreign soil and maimed its enemies for the foreseeable future (France, Russia) and probably in an early win situation won't do Brest-Litovsk and get sucked into a long term foreign occupation of all of Eastern Europe. The Russian government won't fall either, which will be important. Likely part of the Baltics and Poland become independent and part of the German sphere, but Germany will have to prop up Austria-Hungary in the coming years. They would likely fall into civil war over the next Ausgleich in 1917 (assuming the war is over when that happens) and over what to do about the Kingdom of Poland and Galicia with its Polish majority. Its hard to see France recovering enough to start trouble again and Russia is not going to want to start another war without France as an ally. Britain is not going to want to see another war happen, especially without France as an ally. So there would be tensions, but Germany is in the driver seat in Europe.

[Futurist]

@stg 44: Any thoughts on this scenario of mine?

Of the options in OP only the French screwing up more in 1914 is viable.

OK.

The British cannot stay out

What about if Germany doesn't invade Belgium and isn't as provocative in its naval arms race with Britain, though?

and they will and must send as many men as possible to the continent.

Couldn't a civil war in Ireland have required Britain to send a lot of its troops to Ireland, though?

Now what is possible can be a lot less than historical if the Germans do better in say the Race to the Sea and end up controlling the Channel Coast to the Somme river. France is badly lamed and Britain now needs to retain a lot of divisions for invasion defense, while the German navy (historically the Flanders corps which including several marine divisions, air units, and naval units) would have a larger swath of land and ports to operate from against Channel shipping and make shipping to London very uncomfortable, probably requiring the evacuation of over 1 million Londoners like in 1940-41.

Why exactly would Britain have needed to worry about invasion defense in this scenario, though? After all, didn't Britain have naval superiority over Germany?

The French losing harder during the initial campaigns of 1914 would also mean an earlier loss and probably a similar situation to the above. That works even better.

OK.

As to the nuke question its really hard to say what would happen if Germany wins early because we don't know who would have survived that would have impacted the science. Nor do we know how the politics and economy would perform to enable funding and research down that path. If there were still tensions after the Entente loses WW1 then Germany probably would have opted to develop one, but it might take until the 1940s, perhaps a few years earlier than historically it happened in the US because the brain trust of Germany isn't broken up by the economic/political/social situation in Germany.

OK.

A victorious Germany will have its own challenges of politics and what not, but will be far more prosperous having fought and won the war on foreign soil and maimed its enemies for the foreseeable future (France, Russia)

Completely agreed.

and probably in an early win situation won't do Brest-Litovsk and get sucked into a long term foreign occupation of all of Eastern Europe.

Wouldn't it be in Germany's interest(s) to keep Russia as weak as possible, though?

The Russian government won't fall either, which will be important.

Couldn't defeat in World War I (even in a relatively quick World War I) have still been the death blow to Tsar Nicholas II's regime, though?

Likely part of the Baltics and Poland become independent and part of the German sphere, but Germany will have to prop up Austria-Hungary in the coming years.

Agreed. Also, out of curiosity--do you think that Germany will want to annex the Baltic states all of the way up to Narva or only all of the way up to Riga?

They would likely fall into civil war over the next Ausgleich in 1917 (assuming the war is over when that happens)

Wasn't Karl less hostile to the Hungarians than Franz Ferdinand was? If so, then why exactly would the Hungarians have tried to secede from Austria-Hungary in 1917?

and over what to do about the Kingdom of Poland and Galicia with its Polish majority.

Why exactly would this spark a civil war in Austria-Hungary, though? After all, wasn't the Kingdom of Poland a separate country/entity?

Its hard to see France recovering enough to start trouble again

You mean due to the loss of the resource-rich Briey-Longwy area and due to the various arms limitations and reparations that Germany would have imposed on France, correct?

and Russia is not going to want to start another war without France as an ally. Britain is not going to want to see another war happen, especially without France as an ally. So there would be tensions, but Germany is in the driver seat in Europe.

Would that still be true in, say, 1940 or 1950, though? After all, couldn't Russia (as in, a Russia that still controls oil-rich Baku and that still rapidly industrializes in the 2 or 3 decades after the end of World War I) feel that it is sufficiently strong to take on Germany (and Germany's allies as well) without French help in, say, 1940 or 1950 (assuming that nuclear weapons aren't developed by that point in time, that is)? Indeed, Russia, Britain, and the U.S. were able to defeat Germany in World War II in real life without much French help. Plus, Britain certainly didn't withdraw from World War II in real life when France made an armistice with Nazi Germany.

[Futurist]

In addition to this, though, here is another crucial question: Would Britain and Russia be able to get the U.S. and/or Japan to enter into an informal anti-German coalition in the decades after the end of World War I in this scenario? After all, Japan was Germany's enemy during World War I and a victorious Germany might have provoked the U.S. by trying to reduce U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere and to increase Germany's influence in the Western Hemisphere:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_ ... ted_States

"Kaiser Wilhelm II resented the growing economic influence of the United States over the Pacific and South America. He determined to intervene and replace US with German economic power. He felt that having a major Caribbean naval base in Cuba or Puerto Rico would be the first step in this intervention, and that this would also serve to counter US control of the Panama Canal, then under construction.[6]"

Frankly, I think that a coalition of Britain, the U.S., Russia, and maybe Japan and/or Italy would have been able to successfully take on Germany in, say, 1945 or 1950 in this scenario. However, a crucial question here is this--would most or all of these countries have actually been willing to fight Germany after getting their butt kicked by Germany just 20-35 years earlier (specifically in World War I)?

Indeed, any thoughts on this?

[Futurist]

and probably in an early win situation won't do Brest-Litovsk and get sucked into a long term foreign occupation of all of Eastern Europe.

Wouldn't it be in Germany's interest(s) to keep Russia as weak as possible, though?

Indeed, even with a defeat in World War I, even a Russia that loses both Poland and the Baltic states is still going to have an overwhelming population advantage over Germany. After all, in 1915, Russia had around 180 million people in comparison to Germany's 65 million people--a population ratio or almost 3 to 1! Indeed, even with the loss of both Poland and the Baltic states, Russia is probably still going to have 150-160 million people in comparison to Germany's 65 million people--a population ratio of more than 2 to 1! Indeed, the best move for Germany to do would probably be to still reduce Russia to its Brest-Litovsk borders and thus to cause Russia to have 95-100 million people in comparison to Germany's 65 million people--a population ratio of about 1.5 to 1 (at least for the time being).