WW1: US stays neutral, Czar stays in power, Central Powers win

[Blue3]

World War I
-United States stays neutral
-Czar Nicholas II stays in power, after minimal/barebones involvement in the war & early withdrawal, revolution is thwarted
-Central Powers (Austria-Hungarian empire, Ottoman empire, Kingdom of Germany, Kingdom of Bulgaria) "win" the war against France, UK, Italy, Belgium, Serbia, Romania, Greece, Czechoslovakia, Montenegro, Armenia, the different kingdoms of Arabia at the time, etc.

How does this change the course of 20th & 21st century history?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is only possible in 1914. After that point it was not possible for the Central Powers to actually win, only to stave off outright defeat for a certain length of time.

[Pericles]

This is only possible in 1914. After that point it was not possible for the Central Powers to actually win, only to stave off outright defeat for a certain length of time.

Do you think it was necessarily either victory or defeat, and not a stalemate outcome where terms aren't imposed on Germany but also not on the Allies?

[dead0man]

it's nearly impossible to tell, but it seems to be either Germany (and it's allies) or France needed to be soundly defeated, or else there would have just been more wars a generation or two down the line.  Perhaps not as big as WWII was in our timeline, but another war in Europe was going to happen (and continue to happen) until Germany or France one were properly defeated.

[Vosem]

Would WW1 as we know it have happened at all without the Russian mobilization? If Russia chooses not to back up Serbia (as some in Germany hoped they would not do on 'anti-regicide' grounds, which in hindsight would have been wise), then a continental war is probably averted entirely. Austria-Hungary is to some degree strengthened in the Balkans, but there is no other change to the European balance of power.

Several of the countries you list, particularly Czechoslovakia and Armenia, did not exist at the time of the outbreak of WW1. I'm not sure what war you're discussing, but it seems like you need a significantly broader alternate history to get the sides that you want.

[Georg Ebner]

RANKE was convinced, that at least the bigger countries of Europe were more than more or less big&strong soulless apeHords - because they represented respectively certain ideas, ways of life, mentalities, moods. Even those denying this should see, though, that US & SU have been more than semiContinents: they have stood for antagonistic (or rather: complementarian) ecoNomies and these for ideoLogies, whose conFrontation was inevitable in the XXth. Perhaps with other protAgonists (like from the beginning "communism" [=public capitalism] represented by backwarded China instead of Czarist Russia; private capitalism by the dying imperia of UK&France instead of the US, if the ConFederates had won). The hope of HEIDEGGER and other very intelligent people, that Germany could achieve Die Kehre (The U-turn) from technicism to mythicism, did not materialize.
Even "practical" people unaware of ideas&ideoLogies could see, that a victory of us CentralEuropeans would not have - just like the actual WWI - solved or altered anything (apart from the Prussian generals turning from arrogant to super-arrogant...): The gallus gallicus would have been frightened of us more than ever and eager for reVenge; Czarist Russia remained a threat; Poland&Balkans a problem without solution; the DanubeMonarchy a continued anaChronism; detto the bizarre combinations of Reich & Prussia, of ReichsChancellor & William II.

[Blue3]

I don’t think it was decided in 1914, I’ve read articles by historians who think the Entente could still have lost as late as 1918.

Would WW1 as we know it have happened at all without the Russian mobilization? If Russia chooses not to back up Serbia (as some in Germany hoped they would not do on 'anti-regicide' grounds, which in hindsight would have been wise), then a continental war is probably averted entirely. Austria-Hungary is to some degree strengthened in the Balkans, but there is no other change to the European balance of power.

Several of the countries you list, particularly Czechoslovakia and Armenia, did not exist at the time of the outbreak of WW1. I'm not sure what war you're discussing, but it seems like you need a significantly broader alternate history to get the sides that you want.

I was looking at the World War I Wikipedia page, and assumed some of those were attempting to breakaway during the war.

[TheReckoning]

This is only possible in 1914. After that point it was not possible for the Central Powers to actually win, only to stave off outright defeat for a certain length of time.

This is not true.

[oldtimer]

This is only possible in 1914. After that point it was not possible for the Central Powers to actually win, only to stave off outright defeat for a certain length of time.

Incorrect.

The Central Powers had one big problem in WW1: Food.

They had conscripted far more people than the agriculture sector could afford and due to the British blockade they couldn't import american food, Germany suffered a famine.

The defeat of Russia meant they could have access to russian food, especially from german ukraine, and they could demobilize their farmers a bit.

Wilson winning re-election, the disasterous German spring offensive of 1918, and the mass production of the FT-17 tank was what tilted the scales.

[oldtimer]

Would WW1 as we know it have happened at all without the Russian mobilization? If Russia chooses not to back up Serbia (as some in Germany hoped they would not do on 'anti-regicide' grounds, which in hindsight would have been wise), then a continental war is probably averted entirely. Austria-Hungary is to some degree strengthened in the Balkans, but there is no other change to the European balance of power.

Several of the countries you list, particularly Czechoslovakia and Armenia, did not exist at the time of the outbreak of WW1. I'm not sure what war you're discussing, but it seems like you need a significantly broader alternate history to get the sides that you want.

There was one small window of the war not tripping the alliance systems.

1. If Austria had declared war immediately, world opinion would have been on Austria's side.

2. If the Monarchs had attended the funeral of the Archduke, their governments would have used the opportunity to negotiate while carrying the coffin.

3. Germany transferring it's army to Austria to fight Russia without a declaration of war (like in the present Ukraine war).

1+2 couldn't happen because the Austrian Emperor hated his murdered heir and was glad that he got rid of him, he didn't even host the funeral.

3 didn't occur because the German Foreign Ministry wasn't as clever as today's State Department.

[RINO Tom]

This is only possible in 1914. After that point it was not possible for the Central Powers to actually win, only to stave off outright defeat for a certain length of time.

While I 100% agree with what you said, I do think people way too often rush to a "the Central Powers could never have won!" narrative for World War I because they define "win" in such absolute terms.  This is of course on some levels fair given German high command was still pushing for an absolute victory into literally 1918, but a less ambitious and/or German leadership certainly could have avoided losing World War I on numerous occasions past the failed push to Paris, IMO.

I also think this holds true to a lesser extent for World War II.  It is SO popular to almost the point of being cliché now to emphatically state that Germany never had a chance during World War II, and I get at least kind of annoyed by it, as it takes away a lot of the drama that people experienced during that era.  I mean, CLEARLY the people of the time thought the Axis could win.  What I would say is more accurate is that the Nazis could never have won World War II with the aims that they were so fanatical about.  There were multiple times during World War II where competent German leadership could have kept its borders in tact, IMO ... or at least avoided troops ending up in Berlin.  Then again, what IS World War II without the Nazis and their ideology, so I'll acknowledge this is kind of semantics.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Germany couldn't have won the war, but it could have won the peace. A negotiated peace came tantalisingly close in early 1917 and was only ruined by the German high command's decision to launch unrestricted submarine warfare against the United States. If Germany didn't make that decision and instead went with Bethmann-Hollweg's peace initiative, Wilson would have enough to call a peace conference. With the Entente financially dependent on the US as a neutral mediator and total victory for either side impossible, there would be space for a peace broadly acceptable to each side.

In the west Belgian independence is restored, Germany annexes Luxembourg, France regains the French-speaking parts of Alsace-Lorraine. In the east an independent Poland and Lithuania are established from Russia under German protection, Bulgaria gains some territory from Serbia and Romania. The Ottoman Empire loses Mesopotamia and Hejaz to British client kingdoms and an independent Armenia to Russia, Italy has its occupation of the Dodecanese recognised. There's probably a fair amount of random colonial horse-trading: Japan gains Germany's Asian colonies and Britain gains Tanzania and/or Namibia, Germany compensated with the Belgian Congo and possibly a French colony, maybe in exchange for parts of Alsace Lorraine. Probably every power makes some promise to join Wilson's League of Nations idea.

Germany probably "wins" this peace because it comes out much better than France and Russia, who have suffered tremendous damage. Medium term it will be hegemon of continental Europe. USA meanwhile takes over global leadership from Britain as IRL.

The domestic consequences of this all are completely unpredictable, because the IRL end of WWI was so apocalyptic and everything in 1917 was so up in the air. Something like the February Revolution is quite likely to happen anyway in Russia and the Tsar goes, although without the war there's no chance of a Bolshevik takeover. Austria-Hungary has to reform into a federal structure if it can survive. Germany will face a radically emboldened socialist-led movement for democratisation of the Kaiserreich. Britain will have its hands full implementing Home Rule for Ireland and dealing with India. IRL after November 1918 and a ruinous further year and a half of war pretty much all of these crises exploded in revolution and further bloodshed, without that there's some scope for the pressures of the war to be resolved by reform within the pre-war systems. But the difference is so vast from our history that it's impossible to say.

Woodrow Wilson goes down as one of the greatest Presidents of all time and one of the greatest statesman in world history.

[RINO Tom]

Cool post, thank you!

And TBF, Wilson's reputation historically was excellent until very recently, and he is still thought of in a MUCH better light in places like the Czech Republic than he is among young White liberals in the US.

[Skill and Chance]

This is only possible in 1914. After that point it was not possible for the Central Powers to actually win, only to stave off outright defeat for a certain length of time.

While I 100% agree with what you said, I do think people way too often rush to a "the Central Powers could never have won!" narrative for World War I because they define "win" in such absolute terms.  This is of course on some levels fair given German high command was still pushing for an absolute victory into literally 1918, but a less ambitious and/or German leadership certainly could have avoided losing World War I on numerous occasions past the failed push to Paris, IMO.

I also think this holds true to a lesser extent for World War II.  It is SO popular to almost the point of being cliché now to emphatically state that Germany never had a chance during World War II, and I get at least kind of annoyed by it, as it takes away a lot of the drama that people experienced during that era.  I mean, CLEARLY the people of the time thought the Axis could win.  What I would say is more accurate is that the Nazis could never have won World War II with the aims that they were so fanatical about.  There were multiple times during World War II where competent German leadership could have kept its borders in tact, IMO ... or at least avoided troops ending up in Berlin.  Then again, what IS World War II without the Nazis and their ideology, so I'll acknowledge this is kind of semantics.

While an outright Man in the High Castle style Axis win is crazy, it could have been even worse than it was.  If Germany had waited to backstab the Soviet Union until after Britain surrendered, we almost surely end up in a cold war with Germany instead of Russia.

[wnwnwn]

Cool post, thank you!

And TBF, Wilson's reputation historically was excellent until very recently, and he is still thought of in a MUCH better light in places like the Czech Republic than he is among young White liberals in the US.

People have forgotten about his economic policies, putside maybe the income tax admentdant, but they remember the rest. He unites the anti racist and anti progressive economics crowds, making him an easy target for criticism.

[Georg Ebner]

I would have written already before, that another militarical outCome of WWI would not have altered the basics.
What can already be seen by the fact, that - what has been entirely missed here - we Germans&Austrians actually won the war!: The Small Entente was no equiValent for Russia (just opened the possibility of an overwhelming alliance SovietUnion&Germany against Poland&France), thus for the first time in centuries we did not have to fight for everyThing or noThing, for life or death by being endangered on 2 fronts (archEnemy France and allied Turks/Danes/Swedes/Russians).

[Antonio the Sixth]

I mean the conflict you're describing here bears no meaningful resemblance to WW1 as it unfolded from even the very beginning. In order to make it make any sense, you'd have to not just change the war itself, but also the events that led up to it and the main goals of the players involved. Especially the idea of Russia having "minimal involvement" is absurd for at least two reasons 1. Due to the nature of its military logistics Russia's involvement was very much an all-or-nothing proposition. There's a reason Germany expected to knock France out quickly so it could focus the bulk of the fighting on Russia. And 2. The rest of the Entente only got dragged into the war because of Russia in the first place. If Russia barely pulls its own weight, there is no shot France is willing to jump in without its backing.