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

[RamscoopRaider]

The Entente was financed by the UK, who in term had to get their money from US bankers. If the Entente loses, the UK loses, and if the UK loses, Wall Street loses.

Wall Street only loses if the US enters the war. Before the US entered Wall Street was, with the exception of JP Morgan, smart enough to only loan to Britain after receiving collateral. Once the US entered the war that restriction went away, but the odds of the CP winning after that point are relatively low

US loans amounted to ~$2 Billion pre entry and collateralized and ~$8 billion post entry and unsecured. Even if the UK loses they can and will pay the former, it's only the latter that becomes a problem and that is a relatively low probability outcome


In any case I still think that it would be Britain that is the most revanchist

France, while not liking the fact that they lost, the elites at least will understand that they are in no position for a rematch against Germany. And in any case the French historically had no real love of Britain and had a war scare as late as 1898, since the British are likely to come off much better than them I can very easily see the French blaming perfidious Albion for leaving them out to dry and not giving it their all. And of course if Italy ended up in the CP, either from the beginning or a late joining, I can also see hate being directed at "Italian Vultures", as Italy is a foe France can beat. There is also the fact that the most Revanchist politicians are probably the ones who get scapegoated for being the idiots who backed Russia in the July Crisis so are out the door. So I don't really see France being more than mildly revanchist against Germany (IE they'd kick the Germans when they were down, but only if the Germans were already beaten by someone else)

Russia is quite liable to hate Germany. At the same time however there is almost certainly going to be a civil war in Russia, as well as revolts against the winner of that civil war and troublesome minorities. The Reds if they win would probably want to blame the bourgeois and have a show of proletarian solidarity, anyone else is liable to blame the minorities (Poles, Balts, Finns, Ukrainians, Caucasians, Jews...) before the Germans. Russia also has its trouble in the far east to consider. So while Russia would still be revanchist against Germany, they have a lot of other commitments and would have a lot of other people to spread the hate around

Britain on the other hand has no other enemies, historic or current to really blame or focus on aside from Germany, though the Irish will likely get scapegoated. They have the resources to fight Germany as Germany cannot enforce harsh terms on the UK. They also haven't really lost a major war since 1781, unlike the Russians (1905) or French (1871) so are much more likely to take a defeat badly. So Britain is most likely to react badly to losing as they are not used to it, is most able to be revanchist and doesn't have many distractions

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

It will cause economic problems however once they recover there (likely) won't be a catastrophe like Wall Street, US businessman lose money but nowhere near what is happening in Europe and the US became the economic centre of the world as a consequence of WW1 so even if the US ends up having a similar crash.
I don't think the Anglo-German rivalry is particularly strong, the British will be mostly licking their wounds, going into another European war would be suicidal.

I disagree with that, GDP per capita will be similar around the 50's but Russia will have a much bigger economy than what the Soviets mismanaged and then the economic hardship of the 90's.

I agree Russia will have a much bigger economy, and possibly a GDP per capita around that of OTL's Greece. But I don't see it being too much higher.

 

[Crazyduck156]

Depending on the nature of Germany's victory, economic problems do not exist (early German victory) or much earlier (late German victory). The Entente was financed by the UK, who in term had to get their money from US bankers. If the Entente loses, the UK loses, and if the UK loses, Wall Street loses. The economic instability will last into the early 20'ies, followed by recovery from halfway in the decade which will also see the Anglo-German rivalry intensify

An early Germany victory does also means less British war debt

 

[Jonah Carter]

By definition, in order to be revanchist, Britain would've had to lose significant territories in WWI. Given British naval domination, I don't see how that happens. A few colonies might change hands, but nothing that would trigger the sort of all-consuming outrage Alsace-Lorraine did for France. British public opinion is definitely outraged, but most of that is going to be aimed at the domestic leadership. The British public certainly isn't going to be hyped up for a second round, even when they won WWI OTL it triggered a long period of isolationism.

As for France, I think things could go either way. On one hand, as many people have already pointed out, France is in no position to fight another war. But when has the public's opinion on foreign policy ever been based on a rational and sober-minded analysis of the facts? If the French dedicate themselves to rearming in the 20s and Germany gets complacent, I could see them being the ones to break the interwar peace.

To me, the most obvious candidate for a new aggressor state is Russia. It's not a given that the treaty is as harsh as Brest-Litovsk (German war aims were never really clarified on this front until very late, and by then their only thought was to grab up as many resources as they could), but regardless, Russia will lose substantial lands that are probably necessary in order to remain relevant on the European stage. There's a reason the Soviet Union spent so much energy trying to retake it all. A liberal democratic Russia would be just as ambitious on that front, to say nothing of a surviving Russian Empire. If Germany can stifle those ambitions, and if the Bolsheviks don't take power, I think Russia turns to fascism (all the elements of a fascist movement were already there in the Black Hundreds).

 

[Wendell]

Russia or France, but probably the former.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

I agree Russia will have a much bigger economy, and possibly a GDP per capita around that of OTL's Greece. But I don't see it being too much higher.

I think it would be much higher, the economy wouldn't stagnate during 40 years, they wouldn't have an economic crash in the 90's and their population would be much younger than today.
I would like to remember you that Russia has the GDP of Spain today, it definitely had much more potential.

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

I think it would be much higher, the economy wouldn't stagnate during 40 years, they wouldn't have an economic crash in the 90's and their population would be much younger than today.
I would like to remember you that Russia has the GDP of Spain today, it definitely had much more potential.

It also wouldn't have the rapid growth from 1928-1970 or so. The USSR forced Russia to rapidly modernize and industrialize, and whatever its flaws, it was great at doing that, and living standards did increase during that time as well.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

It also wouldn't have the rapid growth from 1928-1970 or so.

There was some growth during forced industrialization but then there is WW2 and by Khrushchev the economy was already nearing stagnation.

The USSR forced Russia to rapidly modernize and industrialize, and whatever its flaws, it was great at doing that

It forced this but trough a more "natural" process the economy would be much better and you are also underestimating the economic crisis of the 90's, it has half of GDP per capita of Estonia today.

and living standards did increase during that time as well

You mean when Stalin did the Holodomor? Living conditions would've been better under the Russian Empire.

 

[gradje]

I think it would be much higher, the economy wouldn't stagnate during 40 years, they wouldn't have an economic crash in the 90's and their population would be much younger than today.

The Russian population problem has to do with the demographic gap WW2 left. If Russia is a revanchist power in the wake of German victory, which honestly even a liberal Russia has the potential to be, Russia launching a war to recapture Ukraine and Belarus still has the potential to turn into a absolute slogfest in which they lose that generation just as much.

You mean when Stalin did the Holodomor? Living conditions would've been better under the Russian Empire.

Just imagine LiveLeak being around during the USSR's forced industrialization.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

The Russian population problem has to do with the demographic gap WW2 left. If Russia is a revanchist power in the wake of German victory, which honestly even a liberal Russia has the potential to be, Russia launching a war to recapture Ukraine and Belarus still has the potential to turn into a absolute slogfest in which they lose that generation just as much.

No sane government will try to fight Germany if they have the Brest-Litovsk borders and without outright genocide of the USSR population there is no way anything close to that happens. And the population problem is a consequence of communism not WW2, you can see that every communist country in Eastern Europe has demographical problems despite not losing 20% of its population in WW2.

Just imagine LiveLeak being around during the USSR's forced industrialization.

I imagine they would have to put some restrictions because of horrible it was, assuming there's someone alive to upload the video.

 

[Jonah Carter]

1And the population problem is a consequence of communism not WW2, you can see that every communist country in Eastern Europe has demographical problems despite not losing 20% of its population in

It's worth noting that you're talking about two totally separate demographic events, separated by decades.

Soviet losses in WWII were recouped by the mid-50s (and deaths in the Ukrainian famine were made up for even faster--such events are unfortunately common in preindustrial economies and often serve as a counterbalance to high birth rates). For the rest of the Soviet Union's life, population growth was steady and sustained.

In the 90s, almost immediately after the fall of the USSR, all of Eastern Europe fell into a period of low birth rates. Its causes are far outside the scope of this discussion, and it isn't really relevant to discussions of Russia post-WWI.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Soviet losses in WWII were recouped by the mid-50s (and deaths in the Ukrainian famine were made up for even faster--such events are unfortunately common in preindustrial economies and often serve as a counterbalance to high birth rates).

It should be noted that the Soviet Union annexed territories after WW2 which added population.

For the rest of the Soviet Union's life, population growth was steady and sustained.

The crude birth rate in the Soviet Union throughout its history had been decreasing – from 44.0 per thousand in 1926 to 18.0 in 1974, mostly due to urbanization and rising average age of marriages. The total fertility rate fell from 2.4 in 1969–70 to 2.3 in 1978–79.[1] The crude death rate had been gradually decreasing as well – from 23.7 per thousand in 1926 to 8.7 in 1974.[2] While death rates did not differ greatly across regions of the Soviet Union through much of Soviet history, birth rates in the southern republics of Transcaucasia and Central Asia were much higher than those in the northern parts of the Soviet Union, and in some cases even increased in the post-World War II period. This was partly due to slower rates of urbanization and traditionally early marriages in southern republics.[2]

Mainly as a result of differential birthrates, with most of the European nationalities moving toward sub-replacement fertility and the Central Asian and other nationalities of southern republics having well-above replacement-level fertility, the percentage of the population who were ethnic Russians was gradually being reduced. According to some Western predictions made in the 1990s, if the Soviet Union had stayed together, it is likely that ethnic Russians would have lost their majority status in the 2000s (decade).[3] This differential could not be offset by assimilation of non-Russians by Russians, in part because the nationalities of southern republics maintained a distinct ethnic consciousness and were not easily assimilated.

It did grow but it was slowing down and the CA Republics were increasingly the ones sustaining the growth. While without the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact it might've been better they would still have a lot of demographic problems.