What kinds of sensitive issues would emerge in a Central Powers victory?

As for sensitive issues, I guess it depends on the exact scenario.

If, for example, Italy stays out of the war, then the status of Albania, compensation to Italy from Austria-Hungary, and the Dodecanese Islands would all present some serious headaches to everyone involved.
 
How would you describe Germany's actions in Belgium? A CP victory would make this the new standard.

Not under the Hohenzollerns it wont. I know you've used the Easter 1917 announcement, stretching it far enough to demonstrate how much the Kaiser loved the Jews but if the Prussian military won the war, it's damn sure going to rule the peace. The Easter message was in response to unrest at home and was suggested to the Kaiser by his Chancellor. While it appeared to promise constitutional reform at the war’s end, it was ambiguous and hardly credibility. This was also while Bethmann Hollweg endorsed the Supreme Command’s demands for German annexations in France, Poland, and the Baltic states.

It was President Wilson that forced democracy on Germany. In his responses of October 14 and 23, he made it clear that the Allies would only deal with a democratic Germany, not an imperial state with an effective military dictatorship presided over by the Supreme Command. Max von Baden's declaration of Oct 5th that he was taking steps to move Germany towards parliamentary democracy was simply not trusted.

Note that after Wilson’s second note, Ludendorff’s resolve returned and he announced that the note should be rejected and the war resumed. However, after continued reverses Ludendorff resigned within a month.

I'm on holidays without my laptop so excuse my brevity.

Last first. The expediency of war does not set the rule for the peace. France was quite ruthless in 1914 in the part of A-L they held for a while, but did they maintain this in the years and decades after the war? The German legislators won't be keen on oppression of Belgium in the 1920s as it won't be a vote winner.

Secondly in 1914 at the Federal level Germany had universal male suffrage for direct election of Reichstag deputies by secret ballot. This is about as democratic as things get in 1914, I believe that it was better than the UK at the time. At the state level things were not as good, cery much flawed democracy. but the 1917 Easter message would have sorted most of that out in the biggest state of the federation.

I think we've been around the bouy enough about the silent dictatorship to realise that it will fade away after the war ends. The fact of the matter is that Germany was moving along the path to constitutional monarchy all by itself and victory would create the conditions for the next step, which would be far more sustainable that what Wilson foisted on them.
 
The fact of the matter is that Germany was moving along the path to constitutional monarchy
Germany/Prussia was already a Constitutional Monarchy since 1849, though I doubt it would end up a mere powerless spectator in German politics like the British monarchy within the Westminister parliamentarian system.
 
I imagine what happens to several hundred million africans and subcontinental asians after britain goes *fascist will be sensitive to the residents of New Wales(what was india after the genocides) and a europeanized pan-africa in some central powers timelines.

Pretty sure the rest of the planet won't buy "excuses" like "They got smallpox" or "the demographic transition happened" the new welsh or pan-africans use to explain why there's only a small number of south asians or africans living on reservations/
 
Given the state of Ottoman-German relations towards the end of the war, I could absolutely see Germany seeking a separate peace with Britain after knocking out France.
If Enver had continued with his drive toward Baku with the "Army of Islam" and the 3rd Army, relations with Germany would've been... strained, to say the least.....
 
I suspect the pacific will also be a hot bed. Let's say for the sake of discussion that the treaty between Germany and japan ends in status-quo antebellum. That means that japan is going to be livid about losing all their gains, and might well radicalize more.

Or, they actually take the german colonies in the pacific. Shame germany will be able to take the french, Belgian, and italian concessions in China (Belgium and Italy would definitely pawn those off if it meant Germany letting them keep the metropole intact, or italy loses enough both are on the cards.) France is the only one who could haggle but honestly I doubt it would.

Well then, the east China sea is now divided between two superpowers likely hostile to each other, and two east asian countries. All four of them want to dominate China- and only one of them is china! Even otl the ROC didn't like it when multiple countries held concessions- how would they feel about their former ally centralizing all of them if it so chose?
 
Probably depends on how/when the central powers won. If its a quick 1914 victory over france and russia, then germany is going to have a big (and more importantly financially intact) British shaped shadow hanging over them

If its a last desperate assault in 1918 victory, then the big issue will be bringing Britain and America to the table to lift the blockade and/or surviving the coming winter/economic aftermath of the war
 
So the Germans pressure the Dutch (at bayonet point - cause it's easy now) to sell Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire.

The US does nothing?
Besides the fact that I doubt that Germany would do something like that. It would not violate the Monroe doctrine. The Monroe doctrine actualy excluded European countries selling colonies to another European country. That would be fine for the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe doctrine was specificaly about European countries colonising free American countries. So Germany buying the Dutch Antilles is not covered by the Monroe Doctrine, Germany invading Venezuela is covered by the Monroe Doctrine. Also Germany gaining Martinique from France in a peace agreement is not covered by the Monroe Doctrine.

That does not mean the USA won't do anything. It means that it is not covered by the Monroe doctrine.
 
It would be the Roosevelt Corollary that they would be challenging.
... erhmmm ... no.
The Roosevelt corollary 'only' called a - due to Monroe doctrine as exclusive interpreted - right of the US of A to intervene in american states incase these states didn't 'behave' well internally (with possible recuperations to foreign interests regadless who those foreigners might be).

The cases mentioned here:
peacefull handing over of (more or less) functioning posssessions of one european power to another european power by treaty or purchase​
are not covered neither by Monroe nor the Roosevelt corollary.
 
I think that if the letter or even interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine was going to be a problem the Europeans could come to some sort of arrangement that seeks a loophole. Maybe sovereignty isn't transferred initially but all sorts of rights and privileges are given to the Germans so they're effectively in control but the Monroe Doctrine isn't triggered, then after a while a vote could be arranged in the islands to join Germany.
 
I imagine what happens to several hundred million africans and subcontinental asians after britain goes *fascist will be sensitive to the residents of New Wales(what was india after the genocides) and a europeanized pan-africa in some central powers timelines.

Pretty sure the rest of the planet won't buy "excuses" like "They got smallpox" or "the demographic transition happened" the new welsh or pan-africans use to explain why there's only a small number of south asians or africans living on reservations/
I doubt Britain would turn to fascism. Even if it did, it's doubtful any such thing as described above would happen.
 
France was quite ruthless in 1914 in the part of A-L they held for a while, but did they maintain this in the years and decades after the war?
There is a wide difference between being quite ruthless and straight up flattening a country.
 
Top