Interesting ideas. But, would Germany really be willing to give up their High Seas Fleet? -- Nik 18:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and if the war was going so well for germany, why accept mediation at all ?--Marcpasquin 02:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good point. Victory would surely be on German terms, which would probably include some sort of forced economic union (probably not political, though) of the Low Countries with the German Empire. With a drastically abbreviated WW1, the gold standard would probably last longer, too. An interesting possibility arises. The German mark was worth approximately 1.25 Fr. What if the Franc were redefined to be equal to the Mark? -- Nik 02:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because the British would have intervened on the side of the French and Russians if they had not. And I think the Germans would have given up their fleet in exchange for gains on the Continent.

That threat didn't stop Germany *here*. If they'd had so much success against France and Russia, it seems to me that they would likely be overconfident in their abilities to fight Britain. I think it's far more likely that Britain would remain completely outside of the War, and Germany would dominate the continent. In fact, there were close relations between Germany and Britain before WW1. Without the War, they may well have remained close allies. Or, perhaps, become rivals. -- Nik 04:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The main objective of the Germans was to gain territory on the Continent at the expense of France and Russia. The High Seas Fleet was a means to exert pressure on the British. The British might have been willing to see France and Russia humbled (indeed, they may have liked to see this), but they would not have been willing to see a Germany powerful by land AND by sea, nor would they have allowed Germany to control the Low Countries. I think the Germans would have cashed in the necessary chips in order to gain British support for their territorial goals.

Important for Germany was also the colonies [ When Germany could get parts of Belgium Congo or some French Colonies they would very easy accept this kind of peace offer. But abandon there high seas fleet would be unacceptable for kaiser Wilhelm II he was in love of his navy--H2o-s 19:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pacific War

Would the Pacific War have lasted as long in that timeline? A large part of the reason it lasted so long in OTL is that most of our resources were focused on fighting the Germans.

However, another big issue is this - Japan, in an effort to secure oil supplies to maintain its war effort, attacks the Dutch possessions in the East Indies. This so alarms the British and Americans that they form a coalition against the Japanese, resulting in the Pacific War. Would the US have attacked Japan over Dutch colonies? I seriously doubt it. Also, keep in mind that the reason the Japanese in OTL needed to worry about oil supplies was that we'd slapped an embargo on them.

Also, I don't think that a mere blockade of the home islands would lead Japan to sue for peace, unless there were some kind of coup d'état, especially if the Emperor were replaced by one of his brothers, especially Prince Takamatsu, the Emperor's second brother, who had been strongly against the war with the US and Britain, and against escalation of the conflict in China in the first place.

Most likely, the Prince would not actually be Emperor, the position would be passed to Hirohito's son, Akihito, but since Akihito was still a child at the time, Takamatsu woudl be his regent. -- Nik 17:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The main reason I extended the length of the Pacific War was because I doubt nuclear weapons would have been developed. Since there was no Nazi Germany, there would have been no expulsions of scientists from Europe, no rationale for the Mahatten Project, ect.
It's also possible that the Western powers would have embargoed the Japanese in this time line, because I think the Japanese would have followed more or less the same course they did in OTL. The causes for Japense behavior during the first half of the 20th Century lie in their pre-1814 history.
Only in part. The Unequal Treaties also played a significant role. Still, those predated your POD too.
Even so, however, you'd need a reason for the United States to participate in the embargo, which seems less likely to me if the United States had remained isolationist during WW1, and thus would presumably remain isolationist in the post-WW1 era. -- Nik 19:41, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As far as the Japanese surrender, it is also possible that it may have unfolded in this manner. There were elements within the Japense government who wished the end the fighting in 1945 in OLT. Add a year-long blockade to the equation, particularly given Japan's utter lack of natural resources. User:Bruce Cabot
It could've happened with some kind of coup d'état or if assurance was given of immunity to the Emperor, he might've directly intervened. There's reason to believe that the Emperor would've surrendered if he knew for sure that he'd be safe from prosecution (as, indeed, was conceded eventually) -- Nik 19:38, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What would the political landscape of East Asia look like then? I think that in China, the KMT would remain in power (without the USSR, the communists were likely to be crushed by Chiang), but what about the future Taiwan and Korea? I mean, they were both parts of the Japanese empire back then...

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.