If the Triple Entente lost WWI, it is likely that Britain, not France, would have been the most revanchist of the three

[NoMommsen]

Isn't modern Russia still fairly industrialized despite having worse borders than Brest Litovsk?

But Germany would have Ukraine, Poland, Belorussia, Finland and the Baltics how can Russia compete? Germany is much richer and industrialized than Russia today if you want to look at it that way

Not to forget that 'modern' Rusians capacity were developed with (most) of the above named p3oples ensl.... 'engaged' under their rule and as their puppets after having 'liberized' them from Nazi rule as well as many of their assets (other word for simply looted after said 'liberation').

But for the topic:
IMO France would still be 'revanchistic nation' number one IITL.
I very much doubt the 'logic' so often applied about the two lost wars in a row. Masses are not logically, if there would be easy explaionations aka scape goats for its own misery. ... as the germans one more time for the french populce and I'm sure there will be nationalistic propagandists (not necessarily afscitoid) playing that fidle.
Also don't underestimate french 'selfperception' being NOT very resiliant to NOT perceiving itself as T.H.E world power (if only in cheese and/or 'cuisine'-culture or similar).

Nevertheless - I'm also rather of the opinion that even this won't be enough ITTL to actually begin some revanchist military adventure (if ... not some other external 'partner' offers them a golden opportunity on a silver platter). They would swallow the tout of being for the overseeable future only a second tier power and 'sell' it as a 'delicatesse' .

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Not to forget that 'modern' Rusians capacity were developed with (most) of the above named p3oples ensl.... 'engaged' under their rule and as their puppets after having 'liberized' them from Nazi rule as well as many of their assets (other word for simply looted after said 'liberation').

Stalin exploited everyone in the Soviet Union, what is important is extra slav*coughs* proud citizens willing to die for the Motherland as he doesn't have them this would mean a weaker Soviet Union overall, however being a part of the Soviet Union for Russia was more detrimental than anything else (other than having a totalitarian and repressive leadership which created a very bad economic system) Russia's vast resources were used for the entire Soviet Union (which itself was wasting a lot of money), one of the main reasons why the Russian nationalism was so strong shortly before the USSR's collapse was because they felt exploited by the Central Government (and the economic crisis which caused even more hostility towards the Central Government).
Eastern Europe wasn't exploited, all USSR puppets were a waste of Soviet resources as subsidies and other similar things only helped Eastern Europe and its other puppets.
Overall Russia itself is stronger than IOTL (for the moment then everything depends on what happens in the long term) and the USSR would be weaker.

 

[jacob ningen]

Not to forget that 'modern' Rusians capacity were developed with (most) of the above named p3oples ensl.... 'engaged' under their rule and as their puppets after having 'liberized' them from Nazi rule as well as many of their assets (other word for simply looted after said 'liberation').

But for the topic:
IMO France would still be 'revanchistic nation' number one IITL.
I very much doubt the 'logic' so often applied about the two lost wars in a row. Masses are not logically, if there would be easy explaionations aka scape goats for its own misery. ... as the germans one more time for the french populce and I'm sure there will be nationalistic propagandists (not necessarily afscitoid) playing that fidle.
Also don't underestimate french 'selfperception' being NOT very resiliant to NOT perceiving itself as T.H.E world power (if only in cheese and/or 'cuisine'-culture or similar).

Nevertheless - I'm also rather of the opinion that even this won't be enough ITTL to actually begin some revanchist military adventure (if ... not some other external 'partner' offers them a golden opportunity on a silver platter). They would swallow the tout of being for the overseeable future only a second tier power and 'sell' it as a 'delicatesse' .

especially as the term was literally a French coinage regarding parties wanting revenge for losing Alsace Lorraine in the Franco-Prussian war.
so I think Britain and france would be different Revanchists
Britain territories and we couldnt have lost

France old revanche and in addition losing Paris again, we need to prove "we're still as powerful as we were before the Bourbon restoration"

 

[DougM]

France would be the most gung ho on getting its territory back (as it was in the run up to WW1) but will be in the worst position to threatenm Germany.
GB will be the only one of the three that could go toe to toe vs Germany but they wont. are as they wont have. lost anything. As Germany cant force a treaty on GB that it is not willing to accept.
Russia is the random one. Depends on how this all goes down and who ends up in charge of Russia. Russia will be better of. (potentually) then France as far as size and number of citizens. But as far as economics… that is up in the air depending on the treaties involved.
Also Russia is a bit more of a roll with the punch's type place the France is.

So France will cry about wanting the loast territories back more then the others but cant really do anything about it.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

GB will be the only one of the three that could go toe to toe vs Germany but they wont. are as they wont have. lost anything. As Germany cant force a treaty on GB that it is not willing to accept.

How can GB go toe to toe with Germany? IOTL they needed Russian, French and US help to be able to win WW1, so they certainly aren't an equal to Imperial Germany.

 

[Alamannicus]

How can GB go toe to toe with Germany? IOTL they needed Russian, French and US help to be able to win WW1, so they certainly aren't an equal to Imperial Germany.

Problem is geography is working against Germany and for GB, along with the ol' Royal Navy. Imperial Germany was defeated by a number of factors in the First World War, but one of the most crucial was the stranglehold the British blockade had on Germany, bleeding out homefront support with every famine and shortage that subsequently transpired.

Strictly Britain vs. Germany is definitely a longer, protracted war, but with the Kaiserliche Marine not exactly capable of breaking the blockade, it'll be hard for Germany to take down Britain.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Problem is geography is working against Germany and for GB, along with the ol' Royal Navy. Imperial Germany was defeated by a number of factors in the First World War, but one of the most crucial was the stranglehold the British blockade had on Germany, bleeding out homefront support with every famine and shortage that subsequently transpired.

Germany had a food shortage because it had to mobilize a lot of resources for the war effort, if there is no land front then Germany is self-sufficient in agriculture.

Strictly Britain vs. Germany is definitely a longer, protracted war, but with the Kaiserliche Marine not exactly capable of breaking the blockade, it'll be hard for Germany to take down Britain.

I agree that a 1 vs 1 would be a draw however Germany has a far stronger geopolitical reach than GB has and the German Navy doesn't have to be inferior forever so I wouldn't say that they are equal to the Germans.

 

[Lalli]

And Britain would need some justification go war with Germany. Politicians should give some good excuse for voters. And it would be even harder after previous war didn't bring almost nothing for Britain beside some distant colonies but they couldn't defeat Germany on the continent. Germany ITTL wouldn't even invade any nation like nazi Germany did.

And frankly Germany hardly is any kind of threat to Britain and Brits know that very well.

 

[thevird]

When you see the Jerrycans attempting to rule over all of Ruthenia and you have to give them the Supreme Leader Stare:

(If Germany attempts to create the Septemberprogramm and continues their 'intervention' in the RCW they will hit a brick wall. Assuming this is just the original peace deal of Poland, Lithuania, and debatably Courtland, then Britain would be the most outwardly hostile unless Kolchak centralizes his rule, then Russia will want to maul Germany to death ASAP. France would just devolve into more internal bickering over pointless internal problems as they did this even when they fucking won.)

 

[TRH]

And frankly Germany hardly is any kind of threat to Britain and Brits know that very well.

Considering novels depicting German invasions of England were so huge as to become their own literary genre over the 40+ years preceding WW1, I wouldn't credit the British public that much in terms of sober threat assessments.

 

[Lalli]

Considering novels depicting German invasions of England were so huge as to become their own literary genre over the 40+ years preceding WW1, I wouldn't credit the British public that much in terms of sober threat assessments.

Surely most of politicians, military personnels and experts can tell differences between reality and fiction. Yes, some surely think that Germany could invade Britain but not sure if it would become or remain as mainstream idea.

 

[thevird]

This entirely depends on what a 'German Victory' truly means for the defeated powers, which is why so many people fall into the hole of copying Kaiserreich's homework and changing it a bit. No Billy, Kolchak wouldn't be a German Collaborator, he wanted any and all separatist movements fucking torched for betraying Russia. (The same separatists backed by the Kaiser)

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

Would an Anglo-German cold war be a likely outcome?

This entirely depends on what a 'German Victory' truly means for the defeated powers, which is why so many people fall into the whole of copying Kaiserreich's homework and changing it a bit. No Billy, Kolchak wouldn't be a German Collaborator, he wanted any and all separatist movements fucking torched for betraying Russia. (The same separatists backed by the Kaiser)

Tbh if the PoD happens after the Russian Revolution or doesn't prevent it in any way, I don't see a white victory as totally plausible.

 

[TRH]

Surely most of politicians, military personnels and experts can tell differences between reality and fiction. Yes, some surely think that Germany could invade Britain but not sure if it would become or remain as mainstream idea.

They'd never have major disagreements on foreign policy if they all agreed on such things. The primary difference between a hawk and a dove is how threatening you find your country's adversaries.

 

[thevird]

Would an Anglo-German cold war be a likely outcome?

Tbh if the PoD happens after the Russian Revolution or doesn't prevent it in any way, I don't see a white victory as totally plausible.

It really does depend on the alternate lines on the map, and where Trotsky would place his better Generals, especially if the Germans are continuing just to play both sides and create more puppets in the West. If lets say Tukachevsky isn't in the East at the right place, in the right time, Kolchak's metal chair is coming down on Bolshevik heads, nearly causing what almost happened IRL and breaking the Siberian Front, in 1916 if I'm remembering right.

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

It really does depend on the alternate lines on the map, and where Trotsky would place his better Generals, especially if the Germans are continuing just to play both sides and create more puppets in the West. If lets say Tukachevsky isn't in the East at the right place, in the right time, Kolchak's metal chair is coming down on Bolshevik heads, nearly causing what almost happened IRL and breaking the Siberian Front, in 1916 if I'm remembering right.

I'll defer to you, since the extent of my Russian Civil War knowledge is a model un conference, which was really fun, but probably not very educational.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

It really does depend on the alternate lines on the map, and where Trotsky would place his better Generals, especially if the Germans are continuing just to play both sides and create more puppets in the West. If lets say Tukachevsky isn't in the East at the right place, in the right time, Kolchak's metal chair is coming down on Bolshevik heads, nearly causing what almost happened IRL and breaking the Siberian Front, in 1916 if I'm remembering right.

RCW hadn't started in 1916 so this is physically impossible. The best bet of the Whites IMO was the March on Moscow.

 

[Alamannicus]

RCW hadn't started in 1916 so this is physically impossible. The best bet of the Whites IMO was the March on Moscow.

Agreed, if the Whites wanted to have their cake and eat it, victory had to be pulled out a successful multi-pronged final blow from Denikin, Yudenich, and Kolchak. After all three had been turned back, retreated, and bogged down respectfully, a White victory was still probably possible, but it definitely would've required the Whites allying with native independence movements, which shy of a few officers, most of the White leadership was totally unwilling to do.

 

[extraterrestris]

And frankly Germany hardly is any kind of threat to Britain and Brits know that very well.

This is a myth. Who controls Continental Europe controls the ships and shipyards of Continental Europe, and the industrial warfare potential of the continent dwarfs that of the British Isles.

 

[Jürgen]

I think that Russia today do give a good indication of Russian revanchism.

As For France, we can see how France reacted on WWII, where they were on the winning side, I think a lost WWI would have similar result and France would try to seek close cooperation with Germany instead.

As for UK, I think people need to look at the economic consequences of a German victory on UK, and think what it means for UK after the war and how it will affect British politics. I doubt as example Labour would have any interest in a second round. But more important UK will also be dealing with many of the same colonial problems as in OTL. British politics can very well focus on India.