I feel that I must clarify some of the points I made. Obviously I should've been a little more clear/longer in my statements.
godofthunder9010 said:
Quite difficult to sayhow it works itself out. Its fair to say that Germany was trying to swallow too much. The Baltic States and Poland probably would have been successfully held.
The Baltic states were already being held successfully when they declared themselves independent. Estonia for example declared independence on January 24th 1918, well before the end of the war. The Germans didn't protest at all. I think this proves that Germany was seeking buffer/puppet states agains Russia.
godofthunder9010 said:
I highly doubt that Germany ever intended to do anything with Finland other than grant its independence from Russia.
Yeah that's very true. The end result would've most likely been the same, meaning independence for Finland. Heck, the Germans even gave us troops in our own civil war.
godofthunder9010 said:
The concessions in the Causcuses region is worrisome because it could have led to an continuation and possible expansion of the Armenian Holocaust.
Very true. Most likely they would've grabbed far more territory than they could've administer properly. The Ottomans were not being exactly tactful when it came to suppressing minorities within their territory. Even if Germany had won, I think that the age of the Ottomans was coming to an end. They were far outclassed in everything by their neighbours.
godofthunder9010 said:
Consider that one of the most important thing that Lenin and the Bolsheviks did to win Russia over was getting them out of World War I. On top of that, consider that it was in Germany's best interests for the Bolsheviks to succeed in seizing power. The Soviet Union, as we know it from history, still would have existed -- minus Belarus, the Ukraine, etc. Deprived of roughly half of its population, the USSR would not likely have ever been the enormous military Superpower it was in real history. On the other hand, Belarus and Ukraine were central to the resistance against the Bolsheviks -- take them out of the equation and the Communists takeover would have been more easily accomplished. The USSR would have still developed and still been a significant player on the world stage, but not nearly AS significant.
What I was trying to say on the other hand was that with the existence of several bolshevik-hostile German buffer states within their sphere of influence would've most likely changed the outcome of the Russian civil war. I think that the worst mistake made by Germans in WW2 was that they didn't take advantage of the Ukrainian anti-soviet sentiment. Imagine if this would've happened.
And to speak more hypothetically, imagine if the germans wouldn't have allowed Lenin to travel to Russia at all, and Vladimir Ilyich would've just stayed in Switzerland learning to make clocks.
godofthunder9010 said:
Regardless of how its people felt in relation to the Reicht, Alsaice-Lorraine started WW1 as part of Germany and would have remained a part of Germany. You could make a strong case for all of Belgium and all of the Netherlands being swallowed up. You most definitely would have seen a German insistance on France disarming, but disarming would have been well nigh impossible to inforce upon the British. I would be surprised if Germany hadn't set up a long term occupation of the portion of France it already occupied -- similar to the French occupation of the Rhineland. Still, with global empires with which to negotiate, Great Britain and France had a lot of options to put on the table in exchange for lessening the direct consequences being applied to their homelands.
Alsace-Lorraine was indeed a part of the Reich and would've remained a part of Germany, but I think you fail to realise that the unified Germany was far less unified than it appears. The old Holy Roman Empire-period differences were still a part of the politics of the era, not to mention the threat of socialism. The Reichstag elections of 1912 for example had seen 110 socialists elected. OTHO the military was being led by right-wing reactionaries. There were noble families for all provinces and there were rather strong independence movements for Bavaria, Alsace-Lorraine and other provinces. One of the reasons for war was to unify the nation against the evil Brits and French. This was the main point of my reasoning when I stated that the Germans wouldn't have probably grabbed too much territory in the west.
godofthunder9010 said:
The real question in my mind is: Would Russia, France and Britain have seen a revival and quest for vengence akin to Nazi Germany? Certainly not in the same form -- France and Great Britain were to established as democratic nations -- but something similar nonetheless.
Oh boy, this is a tough one. The revanchist movement was definitely strong in French politics after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871. Most likely the jingoists would've won several elections if France would've been defeated in the Great War. I do believe that Great Britain would not have supported an offensive war against Germany. Maybe even a fascist France. :?:
godofthunder9010 said:
I think this one is hard to say. Bolstered by victory, the Dying Austo-Hungarian Empire would certainly lasted somewhat longer, but substantial changes would have had to have happened.
IMHO the Habsburgs were doomed way before WW1. The Hungarian movement for indepence was strong and there were similar movements for Rumanians, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Slovenes and the Bosnians as well. In the 1800's, there were lots of ethnic revolts in several provinces like Galizia for example. But I must say that despite of the multi-ethnic background and the huge frontlines, the Austro-Hungarians fared exceptionally well in battle.
And finally... Have you ever heard of a computer game called Victoria - An empire under the sun. I highly recommend it.