Let's just say that the Germans fight the French and British to a draw. WW I ends in a negotiated peace in 1918. Now, this is the really intriuging "what-if:"

The most interesting long term effect isn't that the Germans invent the "blitzkrieg" but, that they retain their navy.
Assume for a moment that the Germans in this situation sit in on the Washington Naval Treaties. How would they fare? Let's assume that they are able to negotiate a ratio for themselves that allows them to match Japan. While this leaves them inferior in surface combatants to England it gives them a superior navy to France. With English commitments else where in the world the possiblitiy now exists that the Germans could attain local naval superiority over the British.
If we further assume that the Germans opt for a carrier fleet (knowing their inferiority in number of capital ships) and upgrade their fleet to support their carriers, the result is that the British are faced with a real delimma. Spend heavily on naval forces to maintain their superiority or, rely more heavily on allies while building larger ground forces.
As a possible list of capital units in this situation:

4 BB of the Bayern class (15" guns)
4 BC of the Mackensen class (15" guns)
2 new BC improved Mackensens
2 new BB Say similar to the H40 class with 16" guns
4 or 5 carriers of slightly more capacity than Graf Zeppelin (say, 50 -60 A/C each).

If you consider a WW II "rematch" along the lines of the original 1940 campaign, all of a sudden the loss of France and the French fleet looks extremely serious for the British. If the above (with appropriate supporting units) was the constitution of the German Navy in 1939 the British are now in very serious trouble. Seelöwe is a very real possiblity following the defeat of France.
A German successful stalemate in 1918 makes for a successful rematch 30 years later.

Where does Comrade Lenin fit into the picture ?
It is his duty to spread the revolution. The Russians can't stay peaceful forever. Need more information to answer this question.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

So the Brits, Americans and French sit on their hands for 20 years or do you allow them the smarts to react to this and develop their own modern force mix?

__________________
Whe're off to see the Wizard, the wonderful wizard of OZ - 6 Australian Infantry Div, Bardia January 1941

Considering the Germans had the carriers and enough navy to protect them this what-if situation in my opinion looks rather dangerous to the RN. Also one should wonder could the Germans make a mess of this one themselves as they could not decide whether Luftwaffe or the Kriegsmarine would order the carriers...

Uncle Stalin would be happy to see Germany vs Western allied fighting each other and would not interfere.

The French would probably be happy with their Maginot line coming up ( all of the money going into it ), the US would hold onto their isolationism ( I think one of the things why WW2 was considered a European thing was that for the US it seemed like the help they gave in WW1 was not thanked for really ever and it seems bigger sums of loans or what should have been paid for goods were never paid ?). The British, well, don´t know about them in this kind of case.

Anyway, in Norway the German destroyers really took a beating in 1940 so I don´t know if the Germans could win battles at sea even if they had clear advantage over ship numbers/guns/carriers ?? Problem with tactics/attitude in the end?

__________________

There is no reason that the Russian revolution does not take place and have essentially the same outcome in this scenario. The Germans would still have been in dire economic straights and able to do little postwar to resolve the Russian conflict and civil war any differently. For the sake of arguement, let's just stick with the original outcome of that revolution.
As to British and French shipbuilding etc: As I already mentioned, the various powers are assumed to have signed the original version of the Washington Naval Treaty with the addition of the Germans getting equal billing to the Japanese. One can assume that the British and French feel they can handle either the German or Japanese navy seperately and, if the Italians side with the Germans the British can stalemate the Germans as they did in WW I while the French counter the Italians.
The number of capital ships I gave the Germans was based on what was available in 1918, the allowance for some navies to complete one or two capital ships in construction and, the original treaty limits.
I could see the British paying alot more attention to carrier construction and aircraft development than they did originally. But, this scenario does give the Germans something they did not have in WW II: A blue water navy capable of acting against the British directly.
It is the treaty actions between the wars that would have driven navy sizes more than anything else. Because of this one can reasonably expect even in this scenario that the British would have ended up with roughly the same fleet they had originally. They lacked the economic base and were constrained by treaty to do otherwise.
The delimma comes when war is apparent (say about 1937 or so) and the treaties are ending. What does Britain do? Do they build a continental army and modernize their forces or do they build a bigger navy to ensure superiority over the Germans? One interesting off shoot of this scenario is that given the increased importance of carriers for the British in the face of a clear German threat in this field, the task force sent to the Far East in 1941 (ie PoW and Repulse) would likely have had adequite air cover resulting in a Japanese debacle as their unescorted torpedo bombers are shot to pieces.

I personally think that Britain has belief in the French maginot line and the money can be spent on the Navy.

The thing that however is different for other countries than Germany is that Germany spent the money on war industry "fully knowing" they would lose the game financially within 2-3 years by creating the new army in such a short period. And only victories in war could balance the money deficits. I would consider the 1930´s still economics wise rather a poor period so how much could the other countries invest in the military because they could not follow the same " crazy path", I think.

__________________

I think the Russian Revolution would have been curbed. Remember, in Brest-Litovsk, Germany got huge swarths of territory, including the Baltics down to the Ukraine. The Soviet Union would have been in a much weaker position in a possible alternate-WW2.

That being said, I believe a peace in 1918 would have led to arms races on all sides again. Trench warfare was already fading by the end of WW1 anyway, so blitzkrieg would have been a factor.

__________________
"If your gonna buy the angel s**t, you might as well go for the zombie package as well."
-George Carlin

The Soviet revolution is a problem for the Germans as well , but then again didn´t the Germans send Lenin to Russia to create chaos so they could win the war in the east, then again his ideas were dangerous because they could create revolution in Germany later on.

Don´t know if anyone has studied this part more more seriously but I have a feeling that if the White Russian generals had attacked the communists at the same time then the revolution could not have withstood it. (Like Israel and Arabs today.)

__________________

More likely due to lack of experience since they have not had a real surface navy for 17 years. Look what the Graf Spee and the Atlanis have acheived against superior numbers. Give the Germans even odds and that makes them overwhelmingly dangerous. The only caveat would be if they had radar. The Italians had a fantastic navy but lost their battles due to fightng blind since they had no radar and no naval air arm.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!