What Happens to Austria-Hungary after a Late CP Victory? [Archive]

LordIreland

January 4th, 2010, 06:28 PM

There seems to be a consensus of opinion that America joining the Entente is a death knell for any chance of a German victory. So I decided to butterfly away the Zimmerman telegram. Likewise the sinking of the Lusitania (apparently is was a random ‘lucky break’ for the U-Boat involved anyway). The unrestricted submarine warfare campaign is a little tougher, but can be done, I refer you to OWs latest TL for an inventive way of doing this.

As Susano pointed out a late CP victory will make sure that all the combatants are ‘mortgaged to the hilt’ with war-loans and weary from four years of industrialised manslaughter. So, events proceed pretty much the same as in OTL with exceptions mentioned above. Russia is defeated and humiliated at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and Germany is able to transfer around 50 or so divisions to the western front for a knock out blow.

This is the real POD. Unlike in OTL Ludendorf actually has a vague gameplan in mind. He is quoted as saying ‘we just punch a hole in their line and the rest will follow’. Whilst this proved true in Russia, it wasn’t the case in OTL. But now, Ludendorf has a vague idea of what happens after the hole has been punched. He plans to pin the BEF against the channel and threaten Paris. It’s a close run thing, losses are heavy, but in the end the Germans win through and manage to isolate the BEF and threaten Paris.

Things don’t look great for the Entente at this point and its about to get worse. On the Italian front Von Straussenberg backs Von Hotzendorf (arguably the best of the Austrian WW1 generals) over Boroevic as supreme commander of the Austrian offensive. Von Hotzendorf concentrates his forces for a pinpoint style attack on 15th June 1918 (in OTL VS couldn’t decide between the two generals and divided his forces evenly and allowed both to attack along the entire front, unsurprisingly it was a disaster for the Austrians). The Italian lines are ruptured and after heavy fighting the Italians are forced to retreat. The Austrian breakthrough dislocates the Italian lines and leads to a general withdrawal/route. This is the final straw for the Italians, their army in tatters and the Austrians seemingly about to burst into northern and central Italy, the Italian government requests a cessation of hostilities.

The Italian ‘betrayel’ is the final straw for France. Many units simply refuse to move, when ordered to counter-attack the Germans. First Paris and then the rest of France explodes into violence. Within a few days, what is left of the French gov’t requests an armistice with the CPs.

German sends out peace feelers to Britain and points out that the BEF is still intact…for now, oh and btw they want their colonies back!

Ok, so, there is a rough explanation and the PoD. The relative merits/demerits have been thrashed through on the following thread:

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=143823

My question now is, what happens to AH politically? My understanding of AHs position in 1918 is that the Empire is fracturing apart along ethnic lines. However, would such a decisive victory enable it to hold together and cobble its way through to a more stable post war situation? Or simply postpone the collapse till a later event such as a severe economic depression? I've seen in various TLs that AH becomes a: Triple Monarchy, A Quadruple Monarchy or even a Federal Alliance:confused:

Also, as an afterthought, how likely is a victorious AH to demand territorial recompense off the prostrate Italians such as the province of Venetia?

Zyzzyva

January 4th, 2010, 10:09 PM

It's going to be in a rough state (everyone postwar is in a rough state, but Austria-Hungary is already closer to the brink than most). I suspect victory will save it (at least in the incredibly short term) but I don't have too much hope for its long-term prospects. A good shock and it's probably going down.

...And if there's one thing they don't need, it's more revanchist minorities.

Franz Josef II

January 4th, 2010, 11:42 PM

Kaiser Karl will have to act quickly. It will not be enough to promise a vague "third kingdom," by this time the full Popovici, 'Imperial States of Austria' plan will be necessary. Likewise, something very important happened in AH in 1917 (or early 1918, I forget, precisely): the Ausgleich renewal came up. Budapest effectively threatened Vienna with starvation to get even further concessions from the Imperial government. If, however, Habsburg arms are seen to be victorious, things will eventually settle down.

The Vulture

January 5th, 2010, 12:47 AM

I, for one, see various fragmentation occurring over the next several years.

Faeelin

January 5th, 2010, 12:49 AM

I'm not so sure it will be quite so difficult. After all, if Austria collapses and Gemrany's won, who will dominate the statelets of Eastern Europe?

demonkangaroo

January 5th, 2010, 01:14 AM

Zyzzyva

January 5th, 2010, 01:17 AM

Germany would try to prop up the Hapsburgs, or start a variation on the "United States of Austria" idea that Franz Ferdinand had. Either way, Germany is key to keep the country together, and to stop it from fragmenting.

Like the Allies saved Russia in 1918?

There's a limit to how much you can do for people who don't want you.

Franz Josef II

January 5th, 2010, 02:40 AM

Germaniac

January 5th, 2010, 06:32 AM

Yeah, but the Allies didn't care about the Whites and it was far away. Out of sight, out of mind.

Germany will be very interested in maintaining peace in Central Europe, and the first option will be to help in restoring order in Austria. If that doesn't work, then a peaceful dissolution of AH will be put forward. Habsburgs remain in Hungary, Austria and her dominions absorbed into Germany (a Habsburg archduke remains in Austria, however).

Germany will pursue one or the other option because they will be dead - set on their European Customs Union, and they need peace and order to implement it; also, they won't want any possible violence to spill over into their own country.

First the Hapsburg's will NOT EVER NEVER NO SIR NOT TODAY allow themselves to be simply absorbed into Germany as an archduchy. At the very least they will relinquish the Imperial Crown and become a Kingdom getting the same or greater autonomy that Bavaria had.

Second, Do the Hungarians really want a German Hapsburg Monarch ruling over them at this point. I can understand it happening considering the later movements, but really the wouldn't the hungarians see it as a continuation of Austrian dominance over them.

Alright here is my view, I believe that the collapse of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire IS NOT certain, in fact I don't even see it as all that likely. Now this is only my opinion, but If Karl has the complete support of Berlin I see him rebuilding his nation similar to what Germany had. Giving Austria, Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia, Galicia, and Transylvania will each be handed off to another Hapsburg Prince, except for Austria which will remain Karl's, and Austria will serve as the Austrian Empire's Prussia.

Eurofed

January 5th, 2010, 09:31 AM

At the very least they will relinquish the Imperial Crown and become a Kingdom getting the same (..) autonomy that Bavaria had.

This seems the most likely outcome for Austria and Bohemia.

Second, Do the Hungarians really want a German Hapsburg Monarch ruling over them at this point. I can understand it happening considering the later movements, but really the wouldn't the hungarians see it as a continuation of Austrian dominance over them.

They can easily get a new monarch from one of the manifold German minor royal houses.

Alright here is my view, I believe that the collapse of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire IS NOT certain, in fact I don't even see it as all that likely. Now this is only my opinion, but If Karl has the complete support of Berlin I see him rebuilding his nation similar to what Germany had. Giving Austria, Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia, Galicia, and Transylvania will each be handed off to another Hapsburg Prince, except for Austria which will remain Karl's, and Austria will serve as the Austrian Empire's Prussia.

I have the opposite view, in that I see the partition as the most likely and beneficial option. Germany stands to gain more if it annexes Austria and Bohemia (and it is much better able to keep the Czech in line than the Habsburg), independent Hungary with autonomous Croatia can do for Germany pretty much everything that A-H did, with much less trouble from the Magyars and Czech, and is somewhat more stable with less abundant and troublesome minorities in comparison. Galicia may be given to the vassal Kingdom of Poland which shall make Poles more amenable to German hegemony. Italy gets its much-coveted Trento, Gorizia, Trieste, Istria, and Dalmatia in the end, and is made a loyal German ally for all time. A unstable ally (A-H) is made two loyal and more stable ones (Italy and Hungary) and one less unhappy vassal (Poland).

shillinger

January 5th, 2010, 11:32 AM

Italy gets its much-coveted Trento, Gorizia, Trieste, Istria, and Dalmatia in the end, and is made a loyal German ally for all time.

Read the POD. Italy was on the wrong side.

Monty Burns

January 5th, 2010, 01:26 PM

Read the POD. Italy was on the wrong side.

So? Eurofed discusses the case where AH is breaking apart and Germany is thinking about its options, which may well include alliances with recent enemies like Italy.

1. If AH breaks apart, all German-populated areas will turn to the German Empire and ask for annexation - as happened IOTL.
2. Given the geographical situation, the Czech would be in no position to resist annexation by a victorious German empire.
3. Galicia is easy pray for Ukraine and Poland - at this point firmly in the German sphere of influence. Partition of Galicia between Poland and Ukraine will appease the local population as well as two vassal countries of Germany.
4. Some form of Hungary will survive - a much smaller and less developped potential partner than AH. Not that bad either. Furthermore, Hungary may be thankful if Germany lends them a hand in securing Slovakia and Croatia.
5. Italy was on the wrong side of the war. True. Providing them with (almost) all they wanted would likely bring them on the right side (from a German viewpoint) AFTER the war. Good deal either.

To conclude: I think it would be easier for Germany to orchestrate AH falling appart than to keep it going and I also think Germany would gain more from it.

shillinger

January 5th, 2010, 03:38 PM

1. If AH breaks apart, all German-populated areas will turn to the German Empire and ask for annexation - as happened IOTL.
2. Given the geographical situation, the Czech would be in no position to resist annexation by a victorious German empire.
3. Galicia is easy pray for Ukraine and Poland - at this point firmly in the German sphere of influence. Partition of Galicia between Poland and Ukraine will appease the local population as well as two vassal countries of Germany.
4. Some form of Hungary will survive - a much smaller and less developped potential partner than AH. Not that bad either. Furthermore, Hungary may be thankful if Germany lends them a hand in securing Slovakia and Croatia.

Absolutely nothing in this part of your post was questioned by me.

So? Eurofed discusses the case where AH is breaking apart and Germany is thinking about its options, which may well include alliances with recent enemies like Italy.

Yes, have a new alliance with the country that stabbed you in the back in the last Great War over a technicality.

5. Italy was on the wrong side of the war. True. Providing them with (almost) all they wanted would likely bring them on the right side (from a German viewpoint) AFTER the war. Good deal either.

A Italy defeated in WWI is much weaker then OTL Italy. The Germans might give them some territories, but I find it very hard to believe they would give away all the Irredenata territories.

Eurofed

January 6th, 2010, 02:17 AM

Yes, have a new alliance with the country that stabbed you in the back in the last Great War over a technicality.

Well, of course, we would have to stay in the doghouse for a few years for that, but if German leaders think about it a bit, they know that Italy never had any serious quarrel with them. Our Entente lapse, sheer geopolitical idiocy as it was IMO (we betrayed our natural business and strategic partners to aggrandize revanchist cheese-munchers that sold us for the useless Serbs at the peace table, if we had stayed in the CPs, A-H would have still fallen in the long run, we would have feasted on French booty, and we would have been in an excellent position to pick Habsburg spoils), was from bottom to end about Austria-Hungary. Differently from the "innatural" alliance with Austria, the one with the Kaiserreich was always genuinely popular in Italy. And from the Italian PoV, yes, the Entente lapse was a most serious mistake, but Germany's obsessive love of the Habsburg inbreds instead of picking us as preferred ally was frustrating and maddening. Now that Austria is no more, we can easily and genuinely won over to the victor's side for good (differently from UK, France, or Russia) if we are treated well. Ask the Americans.

Since the whole point is a proper disposition of former Habsburg territories, well there are some that only makes real sense to give Italy, and it shall make us quite loyal afterwards: No South Tyrol of course, but Trento, western Istria, and Gorizia-Gradisca are packed with Italians and of no real use to Germany, and differently from Austria, Germany does not really need Trieste, which is likewise full of Italians. As it concerns eastern Istria and Dalmatia, we may or may not get it in this situation, our chances would of course not be nowhere that good as if we had picked the CP side. It depends whether Germany wants to appease Italy or Hungary more, but Italians quite likely care to get them more than Hungary does, Budapest would mostly really care to get Fiume.

A Italy defeated in WWI is much weaker then OTL Italy.

Nonetheless, in the long term, such weakness would be fleeting. Italy would still be one of the demographic and economic big guys of Europe, and poised to make the economic boom within the German-led economic community. Differently from Britain, France, or Russia, Italy has no serious geopolitical quarrel or revanchist bone with the German hegemony if we are given the Irredenta stuff, quite the contrary Germany was and is our natural economic and strategic partner (even today, our industry is practically an extension of theirs). If we are treated well, after the A-H demise, we can amaze Germany with our eager loyalty in a few years much as we did the Americans OTL, and we can a much useful tool to help the Germans keep the real revanchists to the west and east into line.

snerfuplz

January 6th, 2010, 03:01 AM

Just a small question on Germany. After a CP victory would Germany be in a financial position to support the Hapsburgs at all? In my opinion if Germany had a poor or recovering economy it would be more interested in a peaceful dissolution of Austria-Hungry. Not to mention trying to keep all its new vassals from Russian territory in line. Granted I don't know much about the Austrian-Hungarian Empire but I assume if anyone would benefit the most would be Hungry as it would be likely that Germany would annex the German parts of the former empire and leave Hungry as the predominant power in the region to gain it as an ally to replace the Hpasburgs.

Hörnla

January 6th, 2010, 01:52 PM

First of all - while the underlying reasons are more grave, the collapse of the monarchy is a result of the apparent defeat in October 1918. If the CP win the Great War, such a collapse is about as likely as a Räte-Revolution in Germany the same day.

If Austria-Hungary wins the Great war, it will survive into the 1920s with a probability of something like 85-90%. Its politics will be turbulent, there will be separatist parties and Transleithania might achieve full independance unless the whole structure of the monarchy would be overhauled.

Also, any annexations it might win will cause countless troubles, be it in Poland, Romania, Italy or Serbia.

Very much will depend on the abilities of Karl I - and on his survival skills. If he dies in 1924 as in OTL, this might be it.

Just a small question on Germany. After a CP victory would Germany be in a financial position to support the Hapsburgs at all?

That depends on the degree of victory. Is the blockade broken? Will the Entente have to pay reparations to Germany?

But even if German economy might be not far better off than in OTL, they could still manage to send enough "volunteers". Compared to the strain of the Great War, a German engagement in Austria-Hungary would probably be cheap.

it would be more interested in a peaceful dissolution of Austria-Hungry.

Why trading an ally for a mixed pack of small states of which none could be much help? We would need a really rogue Germany which has an interest in killing off its only major ally and half-annexing most of it to become a truly hegemonial power. OK, it might happen.

But I would also like to add, that Germany's post-war concept meant to economically merge Europe in the "Mitteleuropa" customs union. Breaking up of the allied multi-ethnic empire in Europe wouldn't make that easier.

and leave Hungry as the predominant power in the region to gain it as an ally to replace the Habsburgs.

Hungary wouldn't be half as valuable as Austria-Hungary as an ally, IMHO. Austria-Hungary was only on the verge of being a major power. Hungary couldn't dream of reaching that status. While Budapest was a vibrant and growing metropolis at the time, the rest was hopelessly rural and hardly industrialized. Even more than Austria-Hungary, it would over-extend itself as soon as it annexes anything in Serbia and or Romania, or even Bosnia-Herzogovina.

Redbeard

January 6th, 2010, 01:57 PM

By OTL November 1918 the A-H Empire indeed was deep into a process of dissolution, but I will claim that was only beacuse the army had started cracking already in October 1918. The A-H Empire's destiny first of all was tied to its army, as long as it existed the Empire stood. Please also note, that the various nationalist groupings creating the new states on the ruins of the Empire, were very marginal until very late in OTL WWI and only could take over because of the power vacuum creted by the collapse of the army.

In this ATL the army not only still exist but can see itself as victorious, I very much doubt that we will see anything beyond a few arrests of rebels and perhaps some rioting.

If a Polish state is sometime errected the Poles inside the A-H Empire would expect an option to join, and AFAIK had been promised so. But anyway, my understanding is that the Poles actually felt A-H as the best place to be if no independent Polish state could be created.

In the long run I think the Hungarian question probably is going to be the tough one. In order to please the Hungarians they had in 1867 been given "partner-status" and in that context were given hegemony over a number of Slavic peoples. That is not going to last forever, but reform into a more federal status will meet tough opposition from the Hungarians. I could see a civil war some time in the 20th century - Hungary vs. the rest - which the Hungarians are likely to loose. Perhaps a rump Hungarian independent state is the result, and the rest going on in a "Federal Monarchy".

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Monty Burns

January 6th, 2010, 06:30 PM

Hungary wouldn't be half as valuable as Austria-Hungary as an ally, IMHO.

That is true, since, as you said, Hungary is much less powerful than AH and would stay so. If the fate of AH in this alternate timeline lies in the hands of Germany, the Germans can decide whether they want South eastern Europe consisting of a bunch of small states which will likely become vassal states of (victorious and expanding) Germany or dominated by a (so far) loyal and weaker Ally. Would Germany prefer a strong and independent partner, or a group of dependent underlings? If you look at American positions regarding the process of European unification, you see that this question has not necessarily a clear answer.

Yes, have a new alliance with the country that stabbed you in the back in the last Great War over a technicality.

Realpolitik. :cool:

Hörnla

January 7th, 2010, 08:48 AM

If you look at American positions regarding the process of European unification, you see that this question has not necessarily a clear answer.

Good point. :rolleyes:

I would say that Germany would try a policy which stabilizes AH far enough to be still viable as an ally, but that it still depends on Germany - which it more or less did since 1879.

In the Mitteleuropa - Konzept, Germany will have to juggle with so many balls, they will be thankful if there is big floating balloon among them rather than 5,6,7 more rogue balls.

PS:
If Germany wanted to kill off the Danube monarchy and annex the German parts of it, it would funnily be so late to do this. A slight re-arrangement of alliances and an alternate Great War would have done it for them (more emphasis on the alliances with Italy and Romania...and maybe a nice offer to Serbia in the years prior to 1914).

Susano

January 7th, 2010, 10:27 AM

Im not convinced it would be all that difficult to prop up A-H. The Hungarians have a vested interest to keep up the state, too, what with all ttheminorities in Hungary, and then theres the German minorities everywhere, and of course simply the Habsburg loyalists and those whod want to avoid chaos at any price, so there would be a local support base. It will be much, much more difficult for Germany to keep its new eastern vasalls in line, and nobody talks avbout those difficulties. Compared to that, propping up A-H is a piece of cake.

Hungary wouldn't be half as valuable as Austria-Hungary as an ally, IMHO. Austria-Hungary was only on the verge of being a major power. Hungary couldn't dream of reaching that status. While Budapest was a vibrant and growing metropolis at the time, the rest was hopelessly rural and hardly industrialized. Even more than Austria-Hungary, it would over-extend itself as soon as it annexes anything in Serbia and or Romania, or even Bosnia-Herzogovina.
A-H was a great power, one of the Pentarchy. The least of them, sure, but it was "officially" so to say seen as a Great Power.

In the Mitteleuropa - Konzept, Germany will have to juggle with so many balls, they will be thankful if there is big floating balloon among them rather than 5,6,7 more rogue balls.
Yeah, thats what I meant. With Germany economcially and politcially so dominant, and with A-H maybe in need fo an intervention now and then, it woudl de facto be vasallised anyways, but for a change it would be a loyal vasall. Theres absoutely no reason to give that up.

LordIreland

January 7th, 2010, 11:14 AM

The A-H Empire's destiny first of all was tied to its army, as long as it existed the Empire stood. Please also note, that the various nationalist groupings creating the new states on the ruins of the Empire, were very marginal until very late in OTL WWI and only could take over because of the power vacuum creted by the collapse of the army.

So, a deceisive victory on the Italian front would restore military prestige and thus in theory that of the Empire. Its my understanding that most of the subject peoples stayed loyal because the Empire was the best option that they had. With chaos developing on the eastern and northern frontiers, a cowed Serbia and Rumania this would probably still be viewed as being the case.

Upon coming to power Karl allowed the Reichsrat to reopen The Czech and South Slav deputies were favourable to a viable federalisation scheme that would allow them self determination.

Yeah, thats what I meant. With Germany economcially and politcially so dominant, and with A-H maybe in need fo an intervention now and then, it woudl de facto be vasallised anyways, but for a change it would be a loyal vasall. Theres absoutely no reason to give that up.

Very true, the Empire's economy is empire wide and inter-linked, a break up would cause significant economic dislocation in the successor states. A stronger centralised dependant state would offer stability on Germany's southern border, and will make Germany's economic plans easier to implement.

In the long run I think the Hungarian question probably is going to be the tough one. In order to please the Hungarians they had in 1867 been given "partner-status" and in that context were given hegemony over a number of Slavic peoples. That is not going to last forever, but reform into a more federal status will meet tough opposition from the Hungarians. I could see a civil war some time in the 20th century - Hungary vs. the rest - which the Hungarians are likely to loose. Perhaps a rump Hungarian independent state is the result, and the rest going on in a "Federal Monarchy".

This is the big problem to a smooth transition as I see it. The Hungarians used the Ausgleich to wring as many concessions as possible out of Austria and they generally got what they wanted. The Ausgleich renewal was due in 1927 and I suspect that the Hungarians would be bitterly opposed to surrendering any of their powers, particularly as they ruled over quite a few minor nationalities and did not always treat them with any real care or interest.

As a sidepoint, does anyone know if the Entente recognition of the Czech and Polish forces as fully fledged Entente co-belligerents at the Rome Congress of Oppressed Nationalities in April 1918 actually amounted to anything within the empire's territory? I know there was a Czech Legion in Russia, but I can't seem to find anything on whether it had any effect before the general collapse of the army OTL.

Hörnla

January 7th, 2010, 12:25 PM

First of all, thanks also to Susano to the recent support. So we agree that Germany should see AH rather alive than dead.

So, a decisive victory on the Italian front would restore military prestige and thus in theory that of the Empire.

There already were enough victories (Russia, Serbia, Romania) - just don't shout out too loud how much the Germans had to do with it. Again, we do not know the premise enough to judge exactly how the war ends. Probably, the decision would have been on the Western Front. With France and /or Britain out of the game, German-Austrian armies could force the Italians out of Venetia and to the negotiation table.

Also, there should not be a collapse of Bulgaria. To me, it seems, that this loss of the smallest Central Power at least coincided with things going steeply downhill for Austria-Hungary.

Austria-Hungary needs peace which it can claim to be at least a partial victory and which comes as long as the army is intact. Or very basically: a peace which stops the famine.

Its my understanding that most of the subject peoples stayed loyal because the Empire was the best option that they had.

Well, OTL for the rest of the century was something of a regional anti-wank. Couldn't have been much worse. But that is hindsight of course. We live in 2010 and the number of nations in Europe and in the world is still rising.

As long as Franz Josef lived, an end of the empire was simply unimaginable to anybody but real radicals. Karl I didn't have much chances, although as I see it he tried what he could. A victory might give him enough time to breathe and to come up with a concept.

There were many loyal - what do we call them? Austrohungarians? Kakanians? But for many of them, this loyalty to a state of which they know how ill-constructed it was, was just a fear of apost-monarchy chaos.

Only nostalgia and the terrible 20th century turned fatalism into enthusiasm, by then it was too late.

Upon coming to power Karl allowed the Reichsrat to reopen The Czech and South Slav deputies were favourable to a viable federalisation scheme that would allow them self determination.

But that was just a short time-window. These deputies radicalized quickly as a) nothing visible happened and b) victory got out of sight.

Karl would at least need to arrange for coronoation ceremonies in Zagreb and Praha- whatever the Hungarians say- to boost his regency.

As a sidepoint, does anyone know if the Entente recognition of the Czech and Polish forces as fully fledged Entente co-belligerents at the Rome Congress of Oppressed Nationalities in April 1918 actually amounted to anything within the empire's territory? I know there was a Czech Legion in Russia, but I can't seem to find anything on whether it had any effect before the general collapse of the army OTL.

The situation in Austria-Hungary was anything but easy. There were plenty of strikes, hunger revolts. But until the end this was rather driven by the terrible situation than by nationalism.

Desertion was a problem, not just across the front, but IIRC also within some remote regions of the monarchy where there were gangs of deserters.

In later 1918, Czech units deserted in formation on the Italian front and were directly re-equipped. Again, this happened in the face of malnutrition and defeat.

However, there was offfically one Czechoslovak division taking part in the battle of Vittorio Veneto.

Susano

January 7th, 2010, 12:34 PM

Well, the Czechs were the most restless nationality. The Hungarians had been placated, the Romanians and Ukrainians had no intellectual elites around of sufficient influence to form movements, the Poles knew they had little alternative with Posen German and the majority of Poland Russian, the Slovenes and Slovakians were always very... inoffensive as IBC has called it (and teh same problem as with Romanians and Urkainians applied), and even the Croatians didnt grumble too loudly. Oh, and there were the Italians, they were restless,too, but they were few.

So, based on that I would say a viable balance between the nationalities can be found. Actually, the greatest antagonist to that might not be Vienna or the single nationalities, but Budapest...

Hörnla

January 7th, 2010, 01:33 PM

Very well, I would like to add a few points, thogh.

Well, the Czechs were the most restless nationality.

But also most geographically isolated. An independant Czech or even Czechoslovak state in a surviving Austria-Hungary would be embedded between Germany and the Monarchy.

the Poles knew they had little alternative with Posen German and the majority of Poland Russian

But what with the Kingdom of Poland? Congress-Poland will not remain part of Russia in a CP-victory world.

even the Croatians didnt grumble too loudly.

And won't do so when Serbia remains stomped to the ground.

machine3589

January 7th, 2010, 02:07 PM

So a surviving A-H can be considered a Magyar-wank, Austro-wank and Croat-wank? Cause about everyone else will probably end up a bit worse then OTL.

LordIreland

January 7th, 2010, 02:17 PM

There already were enough victories (Russia, Serbia, Romania) - just don't shout out too loud how much the Germans had to do with it. Again, we do not know the premise enough to judge exactly how the war ends. Probably, the decision would have been on the Western Front. With France and /or Britain out of the game, German-Austrian armies could force the Italians out of Venetia and to the negotiation table.

Check the PoD that I posted at the start of the thread. The victory over the Italians on the Piave is a big one for AH (at least so it seems on the surface), it also has the added bonus that it could be said to be the battle that wins the war for the CPs. So the war ends on a high note for AH, rather than total collapse as it did OTL. Granted the army is in a pretty poor state, but it is a victorous army nonetheless.

Also, there should not be a collapse of Bulgaria. To me, it seems, that this loss of the smallest Central Power at least coincided with things going steeply downhill for Austria-Hungary.

I agree with you here, I was planning to have Bulgaria as one of the victors. The Ottomans do not get off quite so lightly. TTL's war ends before Allenby wins at Meggido, but with British & Empire troops occupying Jerusalem and Baghdad. I suspect the Germans will be happy to make concessions with Turkish territories in the south because they can offer them very liberal concessions in the Caucausus. Perhaps Lawrence's promise of a pan arab state centered on Damascus may come to pass;)

So, based on that I would say a viable balance between the nationalities can be found. Actually, the greatest antagonist to that might not be Vienna or the single nationalities, but Budapest...

Yes, the Ausgleich is a big problem. The Hungarians will not not want to surrender any power and may well prove to the biggest impediment to a Federated States/Quadruple Monarchy solution.

I have in my mind a possible scenario, where the Hungarians gamble on an open insurrection because Germany (and to a lesser extent AH) will be heavily involved in policing/propping up the eastern territories/dependencies (think treaty of Br. Lit for a basic outline of these).

Cornelius

January 7th, 2010, 02:35 PM

Yes, the Ausgleich is a big problem. The Hungarians will not not want to surrender any power and may well prove to the biggest impediment to a Federated States/Quadruple Monarchy solution.

I was just wondering: what are the possibilities of a peaceful division of the empire?

Until now, we have discussed only the sudden collapse of A-H or its survival (quite difficult, given the numerous ethnic groups). Would be possible a scenario where Hungary and Czech becomes indipendent (maybe under hapsburg or german soveraigns) while Austria keeps all the german and slavic territories?

Hörnla

January 8th, 2010, 10:51 AM

I was just wondering: what are the possibilities of a peaceful division of the empire?

Compared with the break-up of Yugoslavia or the Tsarist empire, I call the dissolution of Austria-Hungary in OTL not completely, but rather peaceful.

Hörnla

January 8th, 2010, 11:43 AM

Check the PoD that I posted at the start of the thread. The victory over the Italians on the Piave is a big one for AH (at least so it seems on the surface), it also has the added bonus that it could be said to be the battle that wins the war for the CPs. So the war ends on a high note for AH, rather than total collapse as it did OTL. Granted the army is in a pretty poor state, but it is a victorous army nonetheless.

You are ideas are very good to let Austria-Hungary survive. I will not discuss here if the CP need ASB to break through the lines in Italy in Mid-1918.

So I guess that we have a peace after Italy gets beaten decisively (maybe due to no US-intervention) and maybe even Karl I manages to successfully propose a peace settlement.

a) Status Quo Ante in the West and towards Italy (which has to accept AH occupation of Venetia for a few years)
b) Entente Powers accept Brest-Litowsk, Bukarest etc. pp.
c) What happens to Serbia is up to the CP
d) Ottoman Empire loses its Arab parts
e) Entente keeps most of Germany's colonies

Assuming these developments in 1918/19, I have a few generals questions for you all to discuss:

1. Most of us agree that the Gordian knot lies in Budapest concerning a complete reform. When do you think will decisive action towards that been taken?
2. Would Karl I live longer? Would Otto be able to inherit the throne?
3. What are the odds for Austria-Hungary (whatever name it assumes, as a federation or not) surviving into the 21st century? If you think this is still not plausible, what lifespan do you expect for it?

LordIreland

January 8th, 2010, 12:03 PM

I will not discuss here if the CP need ASB to break through the lines in Italy in Mid-1918.

Well, you have raised a fair point here, i'm trying to keep it as realistic as I can, but yes, i am guity of massaging the outcome that I want;) My reasoning is as follows - The Piavo battle IOTL was disastrously handled by the Austrian generals, who seemed to suddenly forget four years of experience and attacked along a broad front, imho that would be ASBish if it were put in someone's TL:D

My thinking was based on the fact that the Austrians were trained by the Germans in Stosstruppen tactics etc, so if these were correctly applied and used a breakthrough is a possible outcome. Compound this with the generally disastrous Italian performance in the war to date and I think its possible that a general crisis could be precipitated that would knock Italy out of the war. The Italians would go for a negotiated peace settlement rather than unconditional surrender and a dictated peace. Remember, there are no Americans coming in this version, so it could very well seem that there is no chance of an Entente victoy. The war has got very dark for the Entente since 1917, Russia defeated, the Germans threatening Paris and the Austrians seemingly about to run rampant all over Italy (they wouldn't have been able to do this imho...but the Italians don't know this ofc).

I'm out of time now to pop my views down about your other points, but will just quickly say, that with the right events I don't see any reason why AH has to disappear into the mists of time. Who knows, maybe a follow up TL could be:

AAAAUUUUSSSSTTTTRRRRRIIIIAAAANNNNSSSSS in Space:D

Thande

January 8th, 2010, 12:06 PM

AAAAUUUUSSSSTTTTRRRRRIIIIAAAANNNNSSSSS in Space:D

Austria Est Imperia Orbis Universalis, but Orbis non sufficit, eh? ;)

Tyr

January 8th, 2010, 12:17 PM

A interesting thought really, some pretty important reforms had been underway in Austria in the decade before the war, its a shamne the war came when it did, it would have been nice to see how far the road to democracy would be followed naturally.

Susano

January 8th, 2010, 01:55 PM

Austria Est Imperia Orbis Universalis, but Orbis non sufficit, eh? ;)

Meh. In such a scenario any Austrians in space would probably be there as part of a German space programm, so... ;)

Tom_B

January 8th, 2010, 05:55 PM

You are ideas are very good to let Austria-Hungary survive. I will not discuss here if the CP need ASB to break through the lines in Italy in Mid-1918.

So I guess that we have a peace after Italy gets beaten decisively (maybe due to no US-intervention) and maybe even Karl I manages to successfully propose a peace settlement.

a) Status Quo Ante in the West and towards Italy (which has to accept AH occupation of Venetia for a few years)
b) Entente Powers accept Brest-Litowsk, Bukarest etc. pp.
c) What happens to Serbia is up to the CP
d) Ottoman Empire loses its Arab parts
e) Entente keeps most of Germany's colonies

Assuming these developments in 1918/19, I have a few generals questions for you all to discuss:

1. Most of us agree that the Gordian knot lies in Budapest concerning a complete reform. When do you think will decisive action towards that been taken?
2. Would Karl I live longer? Would Otto be able to inherit the throne?
3. What are the odds for Austria-Hungary (whatever name it assumes, as a federation or not) surviving into the 21st century? If you think this is still not plausible, what lifespan do you expect for it?

The earlier the war ends in 1918 the better are Austria-Hungary's chances of surviving. Antebellum the West BL in the East sounds nice and simple but there are some problems with that. In exchange for annexing Luxembourg and Briey I think Britain and France could get independent and not vassal Poland and Baltic states.

Part of the political solution to Austria-Hungary is to get electoral reform in Hungary. If that could be accomplished (which would mean Count Tisza is marginalized) then a reconstitution could be accomplished through probably not all in one step.

See no reason why for Otto not to inherit. Should be an excellent monarch. Less naive than his father.

LordIreland

January 9th, 2010, 05:21 PM

The war ends in July 1918 after the successful conclusion of AHs Piave River Offensive.

Here is a copy of the proposed Reverse versaille from the earlier thread, posted by Machine3589

OK, here is a rough draft of a Reverse Versailles Peace Treaty:

Germany annexes Luxemburg and Briey-Longwy. (maybe other stuff as well)

Germany gains Morocco, Gold Coast, Benin, Gabon, Middle Congo, Belgian Congo, Ubangi-Shari, Angola, Walvis Bay, and some minor adjustments to the north of Togo. (other ideas welcomed)

Belgium is forbidden to enter any political-economic union or military alliance with France without the assent of the Central Powers, and its neutrality is rescinded. Netherlands joins an economic, monetary, and security union with Germany.

Poland, Finland (with East Karelia and Murmansk ?), the United Duchy of the Baltic, Belarus (with Smolensk ?), and Ukraine (with Don, Rostov, and Kuban ?) are set up as independent German satellites.

Romania is made an Austrian satellite and given Bessarabia, Montenegro and Serbia become Austrian satellites and are heavily garrisoned by the CPs.

Bulgaria gains Macedonia, and parts of Greece as well.

Besides territorial losses, France gets an harsh peace treaty: war reparations equivalent to some 80 billion GM are imposed on them. Their army is limited to 125.000 professional soldiers and officers, conscription is forbidden, and the French aren’t allowed to posses heavy artillery, chemical weapons and an air force. Furthermore, a demilitarized zone of 100 km is established in French territory on the borders with Germany. The French navy is forced to accept a maximum tonnage of 175.000 tons which equals about two battlecruisers, a dozen or so light cruisers and a flotilla of destroyers.

Credits go to Eurofed.

Additions generated by this thread:

1 - OE looses southern territories to the British - With the French designs on Lebanon/Syria removed and given that GB is the only Entente power capable of negotiating from a position of any real strength it is conceivable the GB would want a loyal ally sitting squarely on the overland route to India. This has the ramification of the British being more likely to seriously consider the Indian Dominion proposal.

2 - OE is compensated with ex-Russian territory: Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and perhaps the Crimea - Tbh. I looked at an historical atlas for those choices, so if anyone has a better idea please comment.

3 - Former Entente powers forced to recognise treaty of BL - No brainer tbh

4 - AH occupies Lombardy and Venetia, their troops to be wthdrawn in line with reparation payments - Think German occupationof France after the Franco-Prussian war

5 - Italy forced to accept guilt for the war with AH and to renounce all territorial ambitions on AH territory - This is essentially Germany & AH punishing Italy for choosing the wrong side.

Tom_B

January 9th, 2010, 06:02 PM

LordIreland

January 9th, 2010, 06:18 PM

Assuming these developments in 1918/19, I have a few generals questions for you all to discuss:

1. Most of us agree that the Gordian knot lies in Budapest concerning a complete reform. When do you think will decisive action towards that been taken?
2. Would Karl I live longer? Would Otto be able to inherit the throne?
3. What are the odds for Austria-Hungary (whatever name it assumes, as a federation or not) surviving into the 21st century? If you think this is still not plausible, what lifespan do you expect for it?

I think it would be a diplomatic necessity for Karl to be coronated at Praha & Zagreb. From what i've read of him he seemed to be a genuine reformer, but all his attempts were blocked one way or another by the Germans and the war as a whole. With the war 'victoriously concluded' and Germany distracted by her eastern vassals and huge colonial acquisitions, I think that he would have the chance to enact some/all of his reforms and stabilise the Empire.

I see no reason for Karl to die, he caught pneumonia OTL, perhaps he may still die due to overwork enacting his reforms.:D

As you have stated Hungary is the problem in all of this. I would suspect that once the Hungarians get wind of Karl's plans for reform they will attempt to block him at every turn, after all the Ausgleich relationship is very comfortable for them. Events may very well turn nasty within a few years (if not sooner) after the wars end. Whether political opposition turns into armed insurection is very much up for grabs.

Franz Josef II

January 9th, 2010, 10:29 PM

Since nobody else has yet said it...

MAP MAP MAP...map please!!:D

ImperialVienna

January 10th, 2010, 04:07 AM

If Karl were to die before his son (who would likely become Franz Joseph II, not Otto I) were to reach his majority (which is entirely possible, Karl was rather sickly all his life), Zita would likely become Empress Regent. I can easily see her carrying out her late husband's reforms, whatever they might be, and then those reforms being continued by their son. Any reign by the man we know as Otto Habsburg-Lothringen I find terribly interesting because he would likely be one of the most intelligent and qualified Habsburgs to ever come to the throne.

As for Karl's coronations, I agree he would have to be formally crowned King of Bohemia, something Franz Joseph I never did because the circumstances surrounding his ascension to the throne, but I don't know that he would have to be formally crowned King of Croatia. It might just piss off the Hungarian Nobles who need to be placated in the immediate future (while slowly working to undermine them in the long run) and honestly the Croatians were one of the more loyal ethnic groups to the Habsburg. He might have a formal ceremony to honor the Croatians for their years of loyalty, but it's not necessary.

machine3589

January 10th, 2010, 10:50 AM

The main territorial desire of Germany in Africa was to form Mittelafrika. I don't see expanding Togo and have serious doubts about seizing Portuguese colonies.

Both expanding Togo and seizing Algeria was in the Mittleafrika plan. In fact, the Mittelafrika plan also dictated seizing many British colonies, which I found unrealistic to expect. Google the term, you might get some interesting maps.

Hörnla

January 11th, 2010, 09:20 AM

1. I do not see formal reasons for a Coronation in Zagreb, but the political aim to make the Croats not to side with the Hungarian leadership in an upcoming strike against the Ausgleich.

2. I see no reason to discuss Mittelafrika or the fate of the Ottoman Empire on this thread.

3. I cannot see something like a "reversed Versailles" with this POD. Even with Italy struck down at the Piave, I do not see a CP ability to decisively beat France/Britain in a way that allows them to demand a lot. I am even sure that the Entente can hold Lake Garda / Adige against Austria-Hungary.

Any peace in this scenario is likely to be very close to the Status Quo in the West of Europe. The East and the Balkans would be a wholly different thing, though.

4. I also reckon that Otto, whom I once had the honor to be introduced to, would be an excellent monarch, also probably with a very long reign. The man is still alive.

I am not sure about the line of succession, but maybe even the Hohenzollern could produce a decent Kaiser in the second half of the 20th century.

LordIreland

January 12th, 2010, 07:07 AM

1. I do not see formal reasons for a Coronation in Zagreb, but the political aim to make the Croats not to side with the Hungarian leadership in an upcoming strike against the Ausgleich.

As for Karl's coronations, I agree he would have to be formally crowned King of Bohemia, something Franz Joseph I never did because the circumstances surrounding his ascension to the throne, but I don't know that he would have to be formally crowned King of Croatia. It might just piss off the Hungarian Nobles who need to be placated in the immediate future (while slowly working to undermine them in the long run) and honestly the Croatians were one of the more loyal ethnic groups to the Habsburg. He might have a formal ceremony to honor the Croatians for their years of loyalty, but it's not necessary.

Ok, so, definitly a third coronation in Prague and perhaps some sort of 'non-coronation' ceremony in Zagreb.

3. I cannot see something like a "reversed Versailles" with this POD. Even with Italy struck down at the Piave, I do not see a CP ability to decisively beat France/Britain in a way that allows them to demand a lot. I am even sure that the Entente can hold Lake Garda / Adige against Austria-Hungary.

At this stage of the war, all the combatents we're starting to have problems with their countries continued will to fight. From whati've read most people seem to think that France and Germany were the most likely to collapse first, followed by Italy and finally GB. In this case the Italans have not had a good war. All their offensives have failed and rather than rallying and winning a 'great victory' they are beaten again. The issue here becomes not how good is the terrain, but will the troops actually have the will to fight for it. Also, its easy in hindsight to say, they should have held, their enemy was in a worse state (Percival at Singapore for example), but perceptions at the time are what matter and at this point in time the Austrians seem unstoppable. It is entirely possible the civilian leadership in Rome will panic and request a cessation of hostilities.

Re France, check the PoD, no Americans coming, another massive defeat, Paris threatened by the Germans, the BEF pinned against the channel, the French army mutinied in 1917 and were promised things would change, they haven't. On this basis, I figured the French army would probably mutiny again, whilst the various political factions would pull apart causing the French gov't to start to loose control. This would be enough imho to bring the French cap in hand to he negotiating table as the vanquished. The 'Reverse versaille' will probably be the subject of my third post on this topic:D

I am not sure about the line of succession, but maybe even the Hohenzollern could produce a decent Kaiser in the second half of the 20th century.

Perhaps te introduction of some French blood into the line might help:D

Susano

January 12th, 2010, 08:25 AM

Well, after WW1 Louis Ferdinand ended up becoming the Hohentzollern pretender, and he was an allright guy. Of course, most likely he wouldnt have become Emperor if the Kaiserreich had remained, he had an older brother after all who IOTL renounced his rights to marry "beneath his station"...

von Adler

March 14th, 2010, 08:10 AM

You tend to forget that when you say "the Hungarians" what you really mean is the very reactionary and nationalist landed Gentry of Hungary. The massive majority of the Hungarian people were not enfranchised like the Austrian people was. While the Hungarians might want to force the Austrians to give even more at the next Ausgleich, it is not entirely certain that Hungary will get there at all.

Hungary fell completely to a communist revolution 1919 that had to be chased away by the Romanians. The minorities (Romanians, Serbs, Slovaks, Croats) claiming for more self-government at the same time as socialists and communists gain lots of support calling for enfranchisement. Can the gentry even trust the Honved?

With revolts springing up, perhaps politically supported by the Austrians as "legimate", you can suddenly have a Hungarian gentry facing losing everything and the Austrians demanding a lot of things to send in the army to restore order - or they could even be toppled and a new government asking to be recognised by the King.

Campbell1004

March 14th, 2010, 03:43 PM

Could Austria integrate itself into the German Empire while Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bosnia, Croatia and the rest gain independence but are German vassals?

Germany has the experienced military in order to push them around, but they probably don't want to occupy the entire Balkan region.

Lokari

March 14th, 2010, 04:14 PM

As a sidepoint, does anyone know if the Entente recognition of the Czech and Polish forces as fully fledged Entente co-belligerents at the Rome Congress of Oppressed Nationalities in April 1918 actually amounted to anything within the empire's territory? I know there was a Czech Legion in Russia, but I can't seem to find anything on whether it had any effect before the general collapse of the army OTL.

By 1918 the Polish forces of AH have mutined against Central Powers and their leaders have been imprisoned. They were also riots and protests against splitting of Galicia with Ukrainians which was taken as betrayal by Polish supportes of AH alliance. The Regency Council established by CP declared this as Fourth Partition of Poland on 9th of February 1918 and all members of government resigned in sign of protest on 12th February.

Mikestone8

March 15th, 2010, 09:39 AM

As a sidepoint, does anyone know if the Entente recognition of the Czech and Polish forces as fully fledged Entente co-belligerents at the Rome Congress of Oppressed Nationalities in April 1918 actually amounted to anything within the empire's territory? I know there was a Czech Legion in Russia, but I can't seem to find anything on whether it had any effect before the general collapse of the army OTL.

According to Alan Palmer "Victory 1918" (p187) France recognised the Czech National Council a "Supreme organ of the nation and the first basis of a future Czechoslovak government" on 28 June 1918. Britain followed on 9 August and the United States on 2 September.

As far as I can see, Palmer doesn't give a date for when the Polish National Council was similarly recognised, but probably about the same time.

Nivek

March 15th, 2010, 11:13 PM

According to Alan Palmer "Victory 1918" (p187) France recognised the Czech National Council a "Supreme organ of the nation and the first basis of a future Czechoslovak government" on 28 June 1918. Britain followed on 9 August and the United States on 2 September.

As far as I can see, Palmer doesn't give a date for when the Polish National Council was similarly recognised, but probably about the same time.

Yes but in This scenario if I understand correctly the OP,who said a Succesful Kaiserlatch(Spring Offensive) and no USA meddling when are no their business, the peace gonna will be for Middle Summer-Early Fall(to July to September) to avoid another winter in war time, and an action of recognised a runaway state will be a idiotic manevoer for the Entente(defeated in the battlefield, with france and Italy in their last legs) and a reason to crush brutally the Czechs... i think the comission will become an Unrecgonized state unless the A-H Empire collapse(in this scenario is like throw a coin)

Lokari

March 16th, 2010, 01:39 AM

Franz Josef II

March 16th, 2010, 03:50 AM

Perhaps the French did, and perhaps there was even a 'council of repressed nationalities' in Rome made up of dissatisfied Czechs and others, but these lacked credibility in their home country until the US came along w/their dumbass and stupid 14 points; this and the loss of the Army against the Italians was pretty much the undoing of AH.

Abdul Hadi Pasha

March 16th, 2010, 04:10 AM

AuroraBorealis

March 16th, 2010, 06:02 AM

Well, of course, we would have to stay in the doghouse for a few years for that, but if German leaders think about it a bit, they know that Italy never had any serious quarrel with them. Our Entente lapse, sheer geopolitical idiocy as it was IMO (we betrayed our natural business and strategic partners to aggrandize revanchist cheese-munchers that sold us for the useless Serbs at the peace table, if we had stayed in the CPs, A-H would have still fallen in the long run, we would have feasted on French booty, and we would have been in an excellent position to pick Habsburg spoils), was from bottom to end about Austria-Hungary. Differently from the "innatural" alliance with Austria, the one with the Kaiserreich was always genuinely popular in Italy. And from the Italian PoV, yes, the Entente lapse was a most serious mistake, but Germany's obsessive love of the Habsburg inbreds instead of picking us as preferred ally was frustrating and maddening. Now that Austria is no more, we can easily and genuinely won over to the victor's side for good (differently from UK, France, or Russia) if we are treated well. Ask the Americans.

Since the whole point is a proper disposition of former Habsburg territories, well there are some that only makes real sense to give Italy, and it shall make us quite loyal afterwards: No South Tyrol of course, but Trento, western Istria, and Gorizia-Gradisca are packed with Italians and of no real use to Germany, and differently from Austria, Germany does not really need Trieste, which is likewise full of Italians. As it concerns eastern Istria and Dalmatia, we may or may not get it in this situation, our chances would of course not be nowhere that good as if we had picked the CP side. It depends whether Germany wants to appease Italy or Hungary more, but Italians quite likely care to get them more than Hungary does, Budapest would mostly really care to get Fiume.

Nonetheless, in the long term, such weakness would be fleeting. Italy would still be one of the demographic and economic big guys of Europe, and poised to make the economic boom within the German-led economic community. Differently from Britain, France, or Russia, Italy has no serious geopolitical quarrel or revanchist bone with the German hegemony if we are given the Irredenta stuff, quite the contrary Germany was and is our natural economic and strategic partner (even today, our industry is practically an extension of theirs). If we are treated well, after the A-H demise, we can amaze Germany with our eager loyalty in a few years much as we did the Americans OTL, and we can a much useful tool to help the Germans keep the real revanchists to the west and east into line.

Not this Dribble again...and again unsubstantiated...

You are suggesting that the Hohenzollern Empire would turn on its faithful ally in its time of need...When they are the victorious party

Balderdash and BS in the Extreme.

They simply did NOT act in this matter during the period in question.

The only logical answer is to prop them up ( they already aided their longtime ally once already they will not be abandoning them given that it was the Habsburg offensive that finally broke the back of the Italians leading to the paralyzation of France and CP victory.) Lets be clear..While the Germans have did much of the heavy lifting to gain this victory, The Habsburg have provided the death blow. this is a Joint victory in every sense of the word) and stabilize the empire long enough for Karl to implement some kind of federalized Empire. That means breaking the power of the Magyar Aristocracy. Karl cannot do that without German help if needed ( Even money on whether he has to ask for German assistance or not, as the Magyar's will have their own problems to deal with if they choose to succeed over the issue within their part of the Empire. A larger federalized Austria is a more powerful partner than a smaller Hungary bent on keeping the Slavs of its realm at the bottom of the pecking order.

A-H falling apart inevitably is a cliche that is way overdone by many posters even in a CP victory scenario. The POD suggested gives the impression of a resurgence of strength for Habsburg fortunes. This should not be dismissed out of hand. The various nationalities clamoured for their independence only when it was obvious the A-H and the CP's were going down to defeat, and latched on to Wilson's 14 points. None of this will be a factor. Their will be nationalist tendencies clamouring for greater autonomy and power over their own affairs, but outright leaving the protection of the victorious Empire is not likely to be one of them. More moderate elements will latch on to any compromise position. the hot heads within the Slavic population can be dealt with case by case probably by their own governing bodies. The only group likely to lose power will be the Magyars and to a lesser degree the Germans of the Empire. The Germans can still likely count on being the major force in government in the short term and there will no doubt be Magyars as well within the Hungarian government who will see that many of them will still retain positions of power and influence as long as they are not strident in their opposition to an increase in the influence and power for the minorities of the Empire. there may or may not be Civil War within the empire, it really depends on the reform plan put forward. Personally I dislike the Federalized Greater Austrian divisions as it emphasizes too much of a division on nationality. Simply making all of the various Kingdoms of the Austrian Reich provinces/lander with little in the way of border changes makes the most sense. But give the nationalities within those divisions their proper representation in Government. Germans and Magyars would remain the dominant influence in many key provinces or lander then. Breaking up the Hungarian kingdom into such provinces along the lines of the Austrian side of the Empire shouldn't be too hard.

Again whether the Empire dissolves into chaos really depends on the reform plan put forward. That reform is needed and recognized by the Kaiser is not in doubt. Its simply a matter of how far to proceed and how quickly. winning the war provides him with breathing room for a go slow cautious approach that can be phased in incrementally over the next decade or so.

As to the Hohenzollern's and Germany they have more to gain from securing the Habsburg position over the minorities of the Danubian monarchies. They can view it as a test case for their own designs on a Mittel Europa.

AuroraBorealis

March 16th, 2010, 07:14 AM

The war ends in July 1918 after the successful conclusion of AHs Piave River Offensive.

Here is a copy of the proposed Reverse versaille from the earlier thread, posted by Machine3589

Additions generated by this thread:

1 - OE looses southern territories to the British - With the French designs on Lebanon/Syria removed and given that GB is the only Entente power capable of negotiating from a position of any real strength it is conceivable the GB would want a loyal ally sitting squarely on the overland route to India. This has the ramification of the British being more likely to seriously consider the Indian Dominion proposal.

2 - OE is compensated with ex-Russian territory: Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and perhaps the Crimea - Tbh. I looked at an historical atlas for those choices, so if anyone has a better idea please comment.

3 - Former Entente powers forced to recognise treaty of BL - No brainer tbh

4 - AH occupies Lombardy and Venetia, their troops to be wthdrawn in line with reparation payments - Think German occupationof France after the Franco-Prussian war

5 - Italy forced to accept guilt for the war with AH and to renounce all territorial ambitions on AH territory - This is essentially Germany & AH punishing Italy for choosing the wrong side.

Honestly... The reverse Versailles as proposed is simply not doable even under your proposal.

Britain is not defeated and the RN controls the sealanes. the BEF may be hostage, but Britain is still master of the Channel

Britain will give up nothing itself. they will balk at returning the colonies, at first They will agree only if they can get the Dominions onside ( Australia and Sth Afr.)

Japan need not ever return anything, as there is little that even a victorious Germany can do.

If the Germans want recompense, they can get it from France or Italy. but Morocco is a protectorate...not a colony ( a minor quibble of course I am sure you simply mean that Germany would assume the protectorate of the Sultan). Did not the Kaiser even just recently before the war proclaim him as an independent sovereign. They could add Dahomey and French Equatorial Africa probably with only superficial opposition.
Same with the Belgian Congo ( they won't be happy about it though)

Some of the Italian colonies might be recompense to the Ottomans ( Libya ) for their loss of the Arab territories. Not so certain what would befall Italian Somaliland, Fr. Somaliland or Eritrea. Britain really has no interest in any of the CP powers being in position to threaten sealanes to India. Return of some of the German colonies then, contingent on a hands off policy there by the CP.

Portugal as far as I know has not been defeated by the CP and with Spain a non-combatant and the RN in control at sea cannot be so..They cannot be forced to give up anything as long as Britain supports them, which they will. the Germans can offer to buy the colonies of course...but the Portuguese can refuse if they choose too. Whether they do is another matter. Non-interference from Britain in such German negotiations with Portugal would seem a more appropriate demand.

Return of the colonies...difficult... East Africa, probably...yes as its only recent. Kamerun and Togo ..also likely they largely ended up as French mandates OTL but I can't remember whose forces actually got there...However there is not the problem with the Dominions so they could be returned. A reasonable counter offer is to return some and finance on behalf of the Dominions the purchase of SW Africa. Nauru, Samoa and German New Guinea. Similiar things likely would then follow with the Japanese over German Polynesia. A face saver for all parties.

AuroraBorealis

March 16th, 2010, 07:45 AM

These are inconceivable. A victorious power does not give up territory - especially not virtually all of it, and especially not when most of it is still held. The British army has only reached Jerusalem in Palestine, the Ottomans still hold everything in Arabia except Mecca, and the British are at Baghdad in Mesopotamia.

There is no reason for the Ottomans to give up this territory and no incentive for the Germans to either make them or allow this.

As for Austria-Hungary, 1918 is getting pretty late. After the Brusilov Offensive, I don't think Austria-Hungary's military was capable of independent activity without Germany, and you'd require Germany to prop up a monarchy composed of constituent parts that began to view it as hopeless. Any Poland existing will cause the Galician Poles to want to join it, upsetting the ethnic balance of power. Serbia has been crushed, which is good, but I don't think it's going to be as easy as some of you think to keep the ship afloat.

In case of an early CP victory, survival is a no-brainer.

Okay I wasn't sure where the Br. were at this point given our PoD but if this is the case then I can't see the Br. backed Hashemites getting their way either. However, its possible given the collapse of France to have a cessation of hostilities on the Western front to negotiate terms with the allies on that front, but still have an active front in the Middle East of course were the Br offensive is still a going concern its not an absolute certainty but it will colour negotiations. Indeed it would seem to be the one Ace that the British have left besides the Allied control of the German colonies and sea lanes to them.

Of course with the CP unbroken this does strengthen the Ottoman position and there is no certainty that the Br offensive may be as effective this time around. The offensive could end up stalled or the Ottomans could push more heavily into the Caucasus and NW Persia.

Lokari

March 16th, 2010, 11:02 AM

The various nationalities clamoured for their independence only when it was obvious the A-H and the CP's were going down to defeat, and latched on to Wilson's 14 points.
The mutiny of Polish troops against CP happened on 9th August 1917.
Wilson's points were delivered on 8th January 1918.

Both Polish and Czech national committees were established before Wilson delivered his points.

You are making a mistake of confusing cause and effect-Wilson made those points in reaction to already ongoing demands for freedom. Not the other way around.

Also-he was not the first and only one. From beginning of the war there were promises of freedom and self determination, and national movements.

For example Sazonov's 13 points from November 1914, or Act of November, 1916 by CP.

As to AH-it will dissolve either into chaos or territorially -by the very act of its German "allies" in 1916 who created Kingdom of Poland-which means that either the Galicia Poles will be attached to it, or become a rebelious group.
However it was pretty much agreed that Galicia would be split between Polish and Ukrainian puppets-making both sides hostile to each other and their rulers.

yourworstnightmare

March 16th, 2010, 12:02 PM

Janprimus

March 16th, 2010, 01:18 PM

Austria- Hungary, since this is what the thread is all about;
(I doubt the Empire would really have expanded that much except perhaps annexed Montenegro and a few Serbian border areas)

After a war where many minorities have fought in the KuK army change has to happen. The Czechs and Croats etc. won't take anything else. However the Magyars wouldn't want their territory to be touched, and there would probably be a general unwillingness to give autonomy to Romanians and Serbs. Kaiser Karl would indeed have to act quickly, and the solution wouldn't make everyone happy. The key players would be the South Slavs and the Czechs, and to a degree the Magyars. Some ethnic groups would be screwed over, but that couldn't be helped.

Here's a plan for a federal Austria I have played with in my mind;

1)Austria- Austria and Slovenia +Italian speaking parts including Trieste and Gorz.
2)Bohemia- Bohemia, Moravia and Austrian Silesia
3)Galizia- East and West Galizia
4)Bukovina- Bukovina
5)Hungary- The kingdom of Hungary including Slovakia, Transylvania and the Banat
6)Croatia- Croatia and Slavonia, still in close cooperation with Budapest, but separate from Hungary proper.
7)Bosnia- Dalmatia; Bosnia, Dalmatia, Montenegro, territory annexed from Serbia

Would create a Austrian Federation consisting of 7 autonomous States. If that would be a stable solution; perhaps not, but it would be an attempt to solve the Habsburg problem.

IMHO a more federal Austro-Hungarian Empire seems to be a more reasonable outcome for a victorious Austria-Hungary. Furthermore it does not make sense in such a scenario to demand dismemberment of Austria Hungary, which party could demand or enforce such demands on the negotiation table? If Austria-Hungary would fall apart, it would be by caused by internal struggle; however a victory might have had a positive outcome on the internal cohesion of Austria Hungary.
However I have a slightly different plan for a federal Austria Hungary:
1 Austria (traditional Austrian hereditary lands (+/-Austria+'Slovenia'), including Trieste and Gorizia)
2 Kingdom of Bohemia (Bohemia, Moravia and Austrian Silesia)
3 Kingdom of Croatia (Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Montenegro and territory annexed from Serbia)
4 Kingdom of Hungary (Hungary excluding former Croatia-Slavonia)
5 Kingdom of Galicia-Lodomeria (Galicia and Bukovina)

So perhaps this might be a solution for a more federal Austria-Hungary.

Mikestone8

March 16th, 2010, 03:00 PM

Okay I wasn't sure where the Br. were at this point given our PoD but if this is the case then I can't see the Br. backed Hashemites getting their way either. .

Istr reading (some years ago now, but I think it was in the Times) that papers had turned up showing that the Hashemites were in communication with Constantinople until virtually the end of the war, keeping channels open so that they could revert to the Turkish side if the Allies lost. I never heard any more, but it sounded very plausible.

Abdul Hadi Pasha

March 16th, 2010, 09:57 PM

Okay I wasn't sure where the Br. were at this point given our PoD but if this is the case then I can't see the Br. backed Hashemites getting their way either. However, its possible given the collapse of France to have a cessation of hostilities on the Western front to negotiate terms with the allies on that front, but still have an active front in the Middle East of course were the Br offensive is still a going concern its not an absolute certainty but it will colour negotiations. Indeed it would seem to be the one Ace that the British have left besides the Allied control of the German colonies and sea lanes to them.

Of course with the CP unbroken this does strengthen the Ottoman position and there is no certainty that the Br offensive may be as effective this time around. The offensive could end up stalled or the Ottomans could push more heavily into the Caucasus and NW Persia.

If there is an armistice, it's for the whole war, not just the Western Front. There are German and Austro-Hungarian personnel fighting on the Middle Eastern fronts, and Ottoman troops fighting in Western theaters. These are not separable situations. Germany is not going to surrender its predominant position in the Ottoman Empire, not to mention its oil concessions in Mesopotamia, and throw away a loyal ally. It's just simply not going to happen.

The Ottomans already have pushed to Baku and into Northern Persia. Germany had forestalled them in Georgia by declaring it a protectorate and sending troops, but the Ottomans were in occupation of Persian & Russian Azerbaijan, Armenia, and the Caspian coast up to Derbent.

Lokari

March 17th, 2010, 06:01 PM

The Czechs and Croats etc. won't take anything else
Here is an interesting information I found:
On November 14 1915 the Czecho-Slovak Foreign Committee in Paris issued an official declaration of war upon the Habsburg Empire and demanded independent Czecho-Slovak state.

Beer

March 18th, 2010, 12:17 AM

Honestly... The reverse Versailles as proposed is simply not doable even under your proposal.
The talk about an reverse Versailles is a lot of propaganda remains speaking. Yes, some groups like the "Alldeutsche Verband" were greedy, but they were fringe groups! Not that influential as Entente propaganda boasted. e.g. The first proposal to Russia was a lot milder than BL later! Only after the Russians fought on (and Berlin was miffed, since they helped the guys then in charge earlier) Brest-Litovsk with it´s stipulations came into being.

Britain is not defeated and the RN controls the sealanes. the BEF may be hostage, but Britain is still master of the Channel Concerning the war England vs. CP it´s a stalemate. Germany can´t come over, Britain can´t do anything on mainland Europe anymore. Britain will get less harsh terms, but nothing more. With the fall of France, the CP control continental Europe. Lifting the blockade for practical purposes. Since the CP now have access to lot of ports and neutral Spain to trade. And open roads to other regions.

Britain will give up nothing itself. they will balk at returning the colonies, at first They will agree only if they can get the Dominions onside ( Australia and Sth Afr.) They might balk, but will come around. UK as the last major Entente power standing, Germany could concentrate on enlarging the U-Boat fleet to strangle the Isles back. And now, with the continental Entente nations down, there are quite some troops free which can be moved to other targets over land. The CP can pressure any british positions reachable via land connections.

Japan need not ever return anything, as there is little that even a victorious Germany can do. The ONLY reason why Japan could get away with the murky way they came into WW1 is the cost factor. Berlin will not forget the blackmailing attempts from Japan. The japanese Kaigun is no match for the HSF in size and combat power, but the costs for Germany to bring the fleet and supplies to Eastasia (it can be done) would
be far greater than the worth of the colonies there.

Portugal as far as I know has not been defeated by the CP and with Spain a non-combatant and the RN in control at sea cannot be so..They cannot be forced to give up anything as long as Britain supports them, which they will. the Germans can offer to buy the colonies of course...but the Portuguese can refuse if they choose too. Whether they do is another matter. Non-interference from Britain in such German negotiations with Portugal would seem a more appropriate demand. You overestimate the influence a loosing Entente can wield. Britain might still be top dog on the sea, but Portugal can be reached over land. In this scenario for Portugal the situation is: Britain is save due to it´s an Island, which is the only reason the Heer does not come to London for sightseeing. But Lissabon cannot be sure that Spain won´t let the german armies pass through, if the price is right. The CP gained lots of prestige in this TL by bringing down 2 Great Powers and a third, Britain, is on the defensive. In these conditions, Portugal will throw in the towel fast to get the best possible conditions, before angering Berlin into an iberian B-L.

Return of the colonies...difficult... East Africa, probably...yes as its only recent. Kamerun and Togo ..also likely they largely ended up as French mandates OTL but I can't remember whose forces actually got there...However there is not the problem with the Dominions so they could be returned. A reasonable counter offer is to return some and finance on behalf of the Dominions the purchase of SW Africa. Nauru, Samoa and German New Guinea. Similiar things likely would then follow with the Japanese over German Polynesia. A face saver for all parties. Not difficult. East Africa is a must, since Lettow-Vorbeck is still in the field. Southwest too, since there are relatively many colonists there. Over the others will be haggling, but anything close to french colonies will come back too.

AuroraBorealis

March 18th, 2010, 12:48 AM

The talk about an reverse Versailles is a lot of propaganda remains speaking. Yes, some groups like the "Alldeutsche Verband" were greedy, but they were fringe groups! Not that influential as Entente propaganda boasted. e.g. The first proposal to Russia was a lot milder than BL later! Only after the Russians fought on (and Berlin was miffed, since they helped the guys then in charge earlier) Brest-Litovsk with it´s stipulations came into being.

Concerning the war England vs. CP it´s a stalemate. Germany can´t come over, Britain can´t do anything on mainland Europe anymore. Britain will get less harsh terms, but nothing more. With the fall of France, the CP control continental Europe. Lifting the blockade for practical purposes. Since the CP now have access to lot of ports and neutral Spain to trade. And open roads to other regions.

They might balk, but will come around. UK as the last major Entente power standing, Germany could concentrate on enlarging the U-Boat fleet to strangle the Isles back. And now, with the continental Entente nations down, there are quite some troops free which can be moved to other targets over land. The CP can pressure any british positions reachable via land connections.

The ONLY reason why Japan could get away with the murky way they came into WW1 is the cost factor. Berlin will not forget the blackmailing attempts from Japan. The japanese Kaigun is no match for the HSF in size and combat power, but the costs for Germany to bring the fleet and supplies to Eastasia (it can be done) would
be far greater than the worth of the colonies there.

You overestimate the influence a loosing Entente can wield. Britain might still be top dog on the sea, but Portugal can be reached over land. In this scenario for Portugal the situation is: Britain is save due to it´s an Island, which is the only reason the Heer does not come to London for sightseeing. But Lissabon cannot be sure that Spain won´t let the german armies pass through, if the price is right. The CP gained lots of prestige in this TL by bringing down 2 Great Powers and a third, Britain, is on the defensive. In these conditions, Portugal will throw in the towel fast to get the best possible conditions, before angering Berlin into an iberian B-L.

Not difficult. East Africa is a must, since Lettow-Vorbeck is still in the field. Southwest too, since there are relatively many colonists there. Over the others will be haggling, but anything close to french colonies will come back too.

Spain having not participated...WILL not under any circumstances allow the German armies to pass...They have cordial relations with Portugal they are not going to throw those out the window. Therefore..there are no German troops in the Portuguese colonies or on any Portuguese territories at all... Like Britain, The CP simply cannot get at them. Indeed if this demand were made, I suspect it would be such a grievous insult that the Portuguese would even refuse to entertain an option to buy them at a subsequent date from that quarter. As I stated...a demand for the Portuguese colonies is a non-starter..the more logical proposition is non-interference from Britain in any negotiations aimed at buying them.

I stand by it... your position is somewhat ludicrous.

Besides given the position of the two powers... you yourself admit they cannot damage each other... but Britain still controls the German colonies...They need British good will aquiesence to get them back... compromise will be the order of the day. If there is a reasonable offer put fwd to buy ( Germany can then use some of those funds to purchase the Portuguese colonies if Portugal agrees to sell and the CP have not been so obtuse as to demand them as part of the peace when they are in no position to make the demand) on behalf of the Dominions then Germany will agree as they are already getting compensation else where to begin with and have their sights set on the Portuguese colonies.

Germany and A-H are also both war weary at this point

Mikestone8

March 18th, 2010, 07:48 AM

You overestimate the influence a loosing Entente can wield. Britain might still be top dog on the sea, but Portugal can be reached over land. In this scenario for Portugal the situation is: Britain is save due to it´s an Island, which is the only reason the Heer does not come to London for sightseeing. But Lissabon cannot be sure that Spain won´t let the german armies pass through, if the price is right. The CP gained lots of prestige in this TL by bringing down 2 Great Powers and a third, Britain, is on the defensive. In these conditions, Portugal will throw in the towel fast to get the best possible conditions, before angering Berlin into an iberian B-L.

And even OTL, in Dec 1917 Portugal got a new government, under a man who had been Ambassador in Berlin a couple of years before, and was generally seen as pro-German.

OTL, President Pais did not attempt to pull out of the war, but in this situation he surely will. Why go on backing the losers?

Beer

March 18th, 2010, 09:29 AM

Spain having not participated...WILL not under any circumstances allow the German armies to pass...They have cordial relations with Portugal they are not going to throw those out the window. Therefore..there are no German troops in the Portuguese colonies or on any Portuguese territories at all... Like Britain, The CP simply cannot get at them. Indeed if this demand were made, I suspect it would be such a grievous insult that the Portuguese would even refuse to entertain an option to buy them at a subsequent date from that quarter. As I stated...a demand for the Portuguese colonies is a non-starter..the more logical proposition is non-interference from Britain in any negotiations aimed at buying them.

I stand by it... your position is somewhat ludicrous.

Besides given the position of the two powers... you yourself admit they cannot damage each other... but Britain still controls the German colonies...They need British good will aquiesence to get them back... compromise will be the order of the day. If there is a reasonable offer put fwd to buy ( Germany can then use some of those funds to purchase the Portuguese colonies if Portugal agrees to sell and the CP have not been so obtuse as to demand them as part of the peace when they are in no position to make the demand) on behalf of the Dominions then Germany will agree as they are already getting compensation else where to begin with and have their sights set on the Portuguese colonies.

Germany and A-H are also both war weary at this point
Hi, Aurora!
My position is far less ludicrous than you think.
Yes, both sides have enough of the blood letting, but for most practical purposes the CP have reached their main goal: sole control of mainland Europe. The Entente minors on the continent are either conquered or no real threat, France, Italy and Russia down and the bulk of the british land forces pinned down in northern France.
Even if Britain fights on, the stalemate between them and the CP will not be eternal. As said, with many CP forces now free for other things, Berlin and Vienna can put pressure against all british positions which can be reached via land. More support for the OE threatens the Suez channel for instance. Germany can now build more U-Boats to fully cut off the British Isles from supplies. With the Prestige gained for beating the Entente and access to the world markets restored, time is on the side of the Central Powers.
About Spain: They might have special relations with Portugal, but in this scenario, being in the good graces of the CP is far more valuable to them. Germany was a major trading power even back then (one of the true reasons why Britain went to war), which gives Germany some economic options and Madrid knows that with the CP victorious, Berlin´s and Vienna´s wishes will be what counts in the end. Still, this a moot point, since Lissabon won´t stay on a sinking ship.
But the nation that has to fear the negotiations the most, is neither Britain or France or so, it´s Italy. There are few things a person with prussian upbringing despises more than a turncoat. In addition, Germany was friendly with Italy most of the time, which aggravates it. Rome has to hope that Germany has some plans which need Italy in a halfway descent state, if not Italy is toast.

LordIreland

March 18th, 2010, 10:31 AM

Wow, some very interesting comments:D

This thread seems to have become slightly blurred as to its original intention (the survivability of A-H after a late CP victory). This question was asked in context of my original thread:

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=143823

The basic premise being the plausibility of a reinvigorated France returning and doing to a May 1940 on the German Empire. I've been working on a basic TL, but unfortunately we had a death in the family so i've been a bit distracted.

The Reverse Versaille concept originated from the above thread, but it is by no means a definite, I intend to create a 3rd thread to thrash that one through. But, tbh, the darker and nastier it gets for europe, as a whole, the better as far as i'm concerned.

I will, time allowing create the thread later on today, please do comment, your opinions are valued on this matter (will insert link when i create it).

Yours

Lord I

Janprimus

March 18th, 2010, 10:56 AM

Here is an interesting information I found:
On November 14 1915 the Czecho-Slovak Foreign Committee in Paris issued an official declaration of war upon the Habsburg Empire and demanded independent Czecho-Slovak state.

Interesting, however if the central powers win the great war, the Czechs could at best hope for a more Federal Austria Hungary not independence.

Beer

March 18th, 2010, 11:19 AM

Wow, some very interesting comments:D

This thread seems to have become slightly blurred as to its original intention (the survivability of A-H after a late CP victory). As a fast answer: If the A-H government can get the thought-about reforms through fast enough, K.u.K. will survive. She will get stronger in the long run, because it is often overlooked how much potential still is in A-H. If no reforms come early, then they will destabilize. In that case Austria (with Bohemia and most of Slovenia)will seek entry into the German Empire, the Hungarian Kingdom will become a close ally.

This question was asked in context of my original thread:
The basic premise being the plausibility of a reinvigorated France returning and doing to a May 1940 on the German Empire. I've been working on a basic TL, but unfortunately we had a death in the family so i've been a bit distracted. Even in the case of a very generous peace treaty by the CP, France cannot return to do a May 1940. Northeastern France is devasteted in any case, France is behind in Industry and had the worst casualties of all combatants compared to population (and they have ca. 20 Million people less than Germany to start with). Without strong allies, strong enough to sideline France, and a total lapse in Germany´s military (highly unlikely, since the loss to Napoleon Prussia/Germany were deadset not to let someone get better in military things than themselves again) France cannot overpower Germany and her allies.

The Reverse Versaille concept originated from the above thread, but it is by no means a definite, I intend to create a 3rd thread to thrash that one through. But, tbh, the darker and nastier it gets for europe, as a whole, the better as far as i'm concerned.
Well, then you should take a different PoD, since without some special circumstances, a CP victory will bring much sunshine to Europe in the long run. There are enough historians who agree that a CP victory would have been far better for the world.

LordIreland

March 18th, 2010, 02:16 PM

As a fast answer: If the A-H government can get the thought-about reforms through fast enough, K.u.K. will survive. She will get stronger in the long run, because it is often overlooked how much potential still is in A-H. If no reforms come early, then they will destabilize. In that case Austria (with Bohemia and most of Slovenia)will seek entry into the German Empire, the Hungarian Kingdom will become a close ally.

Thanks, this pretty much sums up in my mind the overall situation. I'm unsure whether A-H will survive or implode at this stage.

Even in the case of a very generous peace treaty by the CP, France cannot return to do a May 1940. Northeastern France is devasteted in any case, France is behind in Industry and had the worst casualties of all combatants compared to population (and they have ca. 20 Million people less than Germany to start with). Without strong allies, strong enough to sideline France, and a total lapse in Germany´s military (highly unlikely, since the loss to Napoleon Prussia/Germany were deadset not to let someone get better in military things than themselves again) France cannot overpower Germany and her allies.

Indeed. Larger industry, larger population etc etc. Counts for nothing if the war lasts for three months.

Well, then you should take a different PoD, since without some special circumstances, a CP victory will bring much sunshine to Europe in the long run. There are enough historians who agree that a CP victory would have been far better for the world.

Ah yes, the sun always shines on the CPs;) But, I disagree, a late PoD is just fine for what I have in mind. Although, I expect i'll cop some flak for daring to go against what is clearly a cherished board belief, kinda surprising really, you all know its called alternatehistory.com...right:D

Lokari

March 18th, 2010, 02:36 PM

Well, then you should take a different PoD, since without some special circumstances, a CP victory will bring much sunshine to Europe in the long run. There are enough historians who agree that a CP victory would have been far better for the world.
There are people who disagree:

http://www.johnreilly.info/pity.htm

http://www.johnreilly.info/wwi.htm

I admit that I am also one of them. A victory for Germany would reinforce nationalists and military. The rule over Central Europe would be certainly authoritarian, and all the ethnic tensions would be even more reinforced with divide and rule policies towards those regions by Central Powers. Britain and Russia would remain as antagonists and would eventually have more power to counter German domination then Germany could hope to gain in its holdings.
Neither nationalism nor totalitarian ideologies would be discredited after WW1 like WW2 so expect them to influence politics with predictable results.
When war will come it will be a lot like Yugoslavia or Caucasus in regards to ethnic conflicts. With stronger Germany you have a chance of use of nuclear and chemical weapons on European soil.

Geordie

March 18th, 2010, 03:45 PM

While this might be straying from the original thread, how much would Bulgaria gain?

I'm assuming that all of *Serbian Macedonia is taken, but how much will the Greeks lose?

I suppose it is very dependent on whether there is still an Anglo-French force in Salonika, or whether they were withdrawn to try and prevent a collapse on either the Western Front or the Piave.

Faeelin

March 18th, 2010, 04:31 PM

I wonder about the viability of Austria-Hungary if it breaks up after 1917 and Gremany wins, or at least wins in the East, and stalemates in the West. I mean, is replacing Austria-Hungary with being nominally independent but bowing to Berlin the best idea?

Beer

March 18th, 2010, 04:53 PM

There are people who disagree:

http://www.johnreilly.info/pity.htm

http://www.johnreilly.info/wwi.htm

I admit that I am also one of them. A victory for Germany would reinforce nationalists and military. The rule over Central Europe would be certainly authoritarian, and all the ethnic tensions would be even more reinforced with divide and rule policies towards those regions by Central Powers. Britain and Russia would remain as antagonists and would eventually have more power to counter German domination then Germany could hope to gain in its holdings.
Neither nationalism nor totalitarian ideologies would be discredited after WW1 like WW2 so expect them to influence politics with predictable results.
When war will come it will be a lot like Yugoslavia or Caucasus in regards to ethnic conflicts. With stronger Germany you have a chance of use of nuclear and chemical weapons on European soil.

J. Reilly´s opinions are rather typical for those with only half-knowledge of the inner workings in Germany and quite a bit unreflected propaganda put in.
The pressure to reform was strong in Germany well before WW1 and several Länder already had quite liberal constitutions. And this pressure was not for a move to the ultra-right, it was for the social democrats and more rights for the lower classes. Without the **** that was Versailles and the bitterness it created, Germany would have become a const. monarchy before long. A CP victory would strengthen the military yes, but it is conveniently forgotten by the "Entente forever" crowd, that e.g. France was far more militaristic at that time than Germany and more money was put into the french forces than Germany did with the Heer.

It is also fact that the Entente soiled the Mitteleuropa idea with it´s propaganda. Most negative conotations were ripped out of context and often from dubious sources. The CP wanted something like the EU with the CP fully in the driver seat. Rather progressive for that time with it´s trade wars.
About nationalism: Versailles was a prime example of nationalism on rampage and it was a Entente creation. The treaty victorious Germany would have given the Entente would have been much tamer. e.g. As I said in one of my post on the forum, the CP´s first peace proposal to Russia was mild, nothing over the top. Only after Russia choose to fight on and broke down half a year later, B-L came into being.
Autoritarian rule: As long as no one challenges Germany´s rule, there would be few pressures on the other countries. This "Germany = autoritarian rule" is mostly propaganda remains.

Lokari

March 18th, 2010, 05:26 PM

France was far more militaristic at that time than Germany and more money was put into the french forces than Germany did with the Heer.It has nothing to do with the importance of military in social or political life, that Prussia was infamous for. While Western Germany was quite different, the Prussian parts were quite strongly connected to military as the central point of ideology of the state-no matter the money spent, or number of wars fought. And Prussia dominated Germany.

CP wanted something like the EU with the CP fully in the driver seat. Rather progressive for that time with it´s trade wars.Defintetely not true. Unless you are trying to say that EU is ruled by Germany that exploits other states for cheap labour and plunders its mineral resources for rivalry with UK and USA. Neither Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania nor Poland would be equal partners in Mitteleuropa but puppet states ruled by German proxies at best. It is way different then EU.

I said in one of my post on the forum, the CP´s first peace proposal to Russia was mild, nothing over the top.Wasn't the first proposal actually very similiar to Versailles in terms of territory-taking away Congress Poland and Baltic states ?

The treaty victorious Germany would have given the Entente would have been much tamerBL disproves that, as do German actions in occupied Eastern Europe.
But its obvious that you have a different opinion and I won't convice-I am just presenting my opinion on the matter.

Autoritarian rule: As long as no one challenges Germany´s rule, there would be few pressures on the other countries. This "Germany = autoritarian rule" is mostly propaganda remains. At the moment Germany gives freedom to states in Eastern Europe a number of them will turn away from it and ethnic fighting will happen(for example between Lithuania and Poland or Ukraine over territory, the same in several parts of AH). Hence for the ME to work, authoritarian rule will be needed. How else to ensure rule of German minority in Baltic Duchy for example ? If it would be a free and democratic country it would be natural that Latvians and Estonians would rule over their countries, not members of German minority.

This "Germany = autoritarian rule" is mostly propaganda remains. So far I haven't seen any historic evidence that Germany planned anything other then direct control over Mitteleuropean puppet states in areas of foreign policy, economy and military, with of course attaching German nobles as rulers of those states. All the works I read on the subject do note that.

LordIreland

March 18th, 2010, 06:27 PM

So far I haven't seen any historic evidence that Germany planned anything other then direct control over Mitteleuropean puppet states in areas of foreign policy, economy and military, with of course attaching German nobles as rulers of those states. All the works I read on the subject, do note that.

Yes, i've found a similar theme in all the books i've read. Another salient point that was stated more than once was that the harshness of the Versailles Treaty was very much influenced by the B-L treaty that Germany imposed on Russia. Whilst there are arguements for Germany on this one, it was the second peace proposal offered, the first (more lenient one) was refused etc etc. B-L did actually set a new precedent that went far beyond the more traditional take a few provinces attitude. Germany taking Alsace Lorraine/Lothingaria after the Franco-Prussian war being a good example of this.

Beer

March 18th, 2010, 06:30 PM

It has nothing to do with the importance of military in social or political life, that Prussia was infamous for. While Western Germany was quite different, the Prussian parts were quite strongly connected to military as the central point of ideology of the state-no matter the money spent, or number of wars fought. And Prussia dominated Germany. Before WW1 the Second Reich never went fully to war, most Entente powers did in various places. Pardon me, but just because the military has strong role in the state does not mean it will be used indiscriminatly.

Defintetely not true. Unless you are trying to say that EU is ruled by Germany that exploits other states for cheap labour and plunders its mineral resources for rivalry with UK and USA. Neither Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania nor Poland would be equal partners in Mitteleuropa but puppet states ruled by German proxies at best. It is way different then EU. Yes, the EU is different, but the new states in the east were never seen as fully independent, always as extentions of Germany and A-H. Dominion-like. The CP wanted additional countries in their Mitteleuropa customs union (one day it should have encompassed all of Europe) and these would have had far more rights, since they were sovereign states.

Wasn't the first proposal actually very similiar to Versailles in terms of territory-taking away Congress Poland and Baltic states ? The CP wanted only territories already conquered or close to falling in CP hands, a minuscle percentage of russian territory and population. Unlike Versailles, which took 10 percent population and 13% territory from Germany (places no Entente soldier had set foot on during the war)

[/QUOTE]BL disproves that, as do German actions in occupied Eastern Europe.
But its obvious that you have a different opinion and I won't convice-I am just presenting my opinion on the matter.[/QUOTE]Self-quote:"the CP´s first peace proposal to Russia was mild, nothing over the top. Only after Russia choose to fight on and broke down half a year later, B-L came into being."

At the moment Germany gives freedom to states in Eastern Europe a number of them will turn away from it and ethnic fighting will happen(for example between Lithuania and Poland or Ukraine over territory, the same in several parts of AH). Hence for the ME to work, authoritarian rule will be needed. How else to ensure rule of German minority in Baltic Duchy for example ? If it would be a free and democratic country it would be natural that Latvians and Estonians would rule over their countries, not members of German minority.
So far I haven't seen any historic evidence that Germany planned anything other then direct control over Mitteleuropean puppet states in areas of foreign policy, economy and military, with of course attaching German nobles as rulers of those states. All the works I read on the subject, do note that. You make the mistake to think about the new states as sovereign nations. As said above, this was never the intent. Always something like the Dominions of Britain. I meant fully sovereign nations in the CP orbit, when I talked about no autoritarian moves a long as they are no threat.

LordIreland

March 18th, 2010, 07:22 PM

You make the mistake to think about the new states as sovereign nations. As said above, this was never the intent. Always something like the Dominions of Britain.

I think this reference to Dominions encapsulates very much what the Germans had in mind. The major difference here ofc is that these 'Dominions' do not (in many cases) share a common race or history with the Hegemon. The sudden 'liberation' from centuries of Tsarist rule led to an explosion of political movements, unrest, infighting and so on in OTL.

This, at least imho, means that a large amount of Landsers will be stuck with garrison duty in 'some ghastly place at the arse end of the empire' (please note that this is simply me empathising with soldiers being stuck somewhere they don't want to be and is not in any way a true reflection of the states being talked about here- disclaimer over:)). Whilst others will be involved in counter-insurgency operations or dealing with spillover from the chaos that is Russia (i plan to have things degenerate pretty badly in Russia in the 20s).

I'll need to check the exact figures, but Germany needed to station close to a million men in the east OTL to ensure order.

LordIreland

March 18th, 2010, 07:57 PM

As promised, here is the new Peace Treaty thread, all comments welcome.

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=151704

Lokari

March 19th, 2010, 11:55 AM

The CP wanted only territories already conquered or close to falling in CP hands, a minuscle percentage of russian territory and population.
Unlike Versailles, which took 10 percent population and 13% territory from Germany

Congres Poland 12 mln.
Baltic States 6 mln.
Ukraine -30 mln
Belarus -8 mln
Total-around 56 mln

Population of Russian Empire-180 mln

That's around 30% of Russian Empire's population.
I won't even calculate the percentage of territory taken away.
Versailles Treaty doesn't go near the harshness of Brest Litovsk Treaty.

Yes, the EU is different, but the new states in the east were never seen as fully independentWell then, you just agreed that the rule in Central and Eastern Europe will be authoritarian, after all people will be denied independence and self-determination that's hardly an EU-like organisation being established. The EU is made of equal states with voting rights an representation, not of one hegemon dictating others what to do.

You make the mistake to think about the new states as sovereign nations. As said above, this was never the intent. Always something like the Dominions of Britain. I meant fully sovereign nations in the CP orbit, when I talked about no autoritarian moves a long as they are no threat. I don't understand your reasoning. You are claiming CP rule wouldn't be authoritarian because they would deny independence and freedom for nations they would rule over ? Isn't that the very definition of authoritarian rule ?

Beer

March 19th, 2010, 12:02 PM

Congres Poland 12 mln.
Baltic States 6 mln.
Ukraine -30 mln
Belaurs -8 mln
Total-around 56 mln

Population of Russian Empire-180 mln

That's around 30% of Russian Empire's population.
I won't even calculate the percentage of territory taken away.
Versailles Treaty doesn't go near the harshness of Brest Litovsk Treaty.

Facepalm! I was talking about the first treaty proposal Russia could have gotten without fighting on! Read my posts correctly!

Lokari

March 19th, 2010, 12:32 PM

What were the exact details of the first peace plan ?

And I am sure Germany would gotten better peace dea as welll in 1914 then in 1918.

Also I would like you to explain how you are claiming CP rule wouldn't be authoritarian because they would deny independence and freedom for nations they would rule over ? Isn't that the very definition of authoritarian rule ?

Beer

March 19th, 2010, 12:47 PM

Congres Poland 12 mln.
Baltic States 6 mln.
Ukraine -30 mln
Belarus -8 mln
Total-around 56 mlnPopulation of Russian Empire-180 mln

That's around 30% of Russian Empire's population.
I won't even calculate the percentage of territory taken away.
Versailles Treaty doesn't go near the harshness of Brest Litovsk Treaty.

For our Ententewankers:
First, you don´t calculate the territory percentage because it would show that Versailles was harsher on that. Russia is huge, even B-L takes only a small amount of territory away.
Second, since you read only what you like:
My former post was about why the west would have gotten a much tamer peace treaty. Russia got a treaty proposal in 1917 which was tame. The CP wanted Congress Poland, the Baltic states and some border corrections at the A-H/Russia border. All wanted territories were already in CP hands or close to falling at that time. Russia did not take it, but fought on and broke down. Only then B-L came into being after the CP were angered about the additional loss of life.
The west would certainly have gotten a tame one first.
Third:
You like your faulty opinion of the CP as baddies, since you only take out of post what you want.

Lokari

March 19th, 2010, 12:57 PM

irst, you don´t calculate the territory percentage because it would show that Versailles was harsher on that. Russia is huge, even B-L takes only a small amount of territory away.That's manipulation-Russia had a lot of land. A lot of unused, inhabitable land, like tundra. Comparing the territory lost by Russia to territory lost by Germany is absolutely wrong way of saying-hey Russia would lose a lot less percentage. So what ? It means nothing, since it doesn't tell us anything of value of the land. In fact you could just grab whole European Russia and say-hey there is a lot of land left !

Russia got a treaty proposal in 1917 which was tame. The CP wanted Congress Poland, the Baltic states and some border corrections at the A-H/Russia border.Baltic States-6mln.
Congress Poland-12mln
That makes it 18 mln
So around 18-20 mln(AH "boder corrections") ?. That's about 10-11 % of Russia's population. As you yourself wrote:
Unlike Versailles, which took 10 percent population So the first terms were just like Versailles when it came to population of Russian Empire being lost. Had Versailles looked like BL then Germany would lose 30% of its population.

Susano

March 19th, 2010, 01:35 PM

Ugh.

Dear Beer,
could you please stop giving ammunition to those whom you call "entente-wankers"?
Thanks,
The local CP
:rolleyes:

Mind, not that Id want to exonerate Lokari here. Some of his comments are just bad clichees, too. So Im not wading into that trainwreck of a discussion too deeply, but some facts as I see them:

Brest-Litovsk was incredibly harsh. I dont think it was harsher than Versailles - the territorial losses were immense (% of territory doesnt matter considering how most of Russia is Siberian wastes, so yes, % of population makes most sense), however, the treaty imposed no restrictions on Russian/Soviet military or economy as Versailles did. And really, all territories lost were the product of Russian imperialism anyways, all ethnically non-Russian. This territorially reduced Russia now could hence have thrived, as far as the peace treaty was concerned. One should also mention that this peace came about after the Kerensky government rejected peace talks and tried (heh) to restart offensives, resulting into the total and utter collapse of the front. I am sure that without that the Russians would have gotten way more lenient terms.

However, overall, it is indeed quite valid to describe Bres-Litovsk as a needlessly vicious and harsh peace. Of course, then the remaining Entente powers came and topped that harshness and viciousness...

As for the outcome of a world with victorious CP, it would hardly be all sunshine. Yes, before WW1 the SPD was steadily increasing its electoral base, and there were also besides that several pushes for reform. Here now, though, the reactionaries and militarists whove always stood against such reforms have been vindicated. This will put a major dent into all reform efforts. Such issues can be worked around - personally, I quite like the scenario of the military elites and the Emperor trying to intervene in the Russian Civil War, the population and the soldiers going "WTF? We just won the war, we want peace now", and a milder version of the OTL German Revolution happening hence... but the point is a total and utter German victory without any such problems will create majory problems in Germany by strengthening the reactionaries.
(And really, thats why I prefer Weimar PoDs. The loss of WW1 at least gained Germany a democratic republic!)

And then there is East Europe and East Central Europe. Germany would colonise it, in both senses of the word. Those newly carved out vasall states would in fact be colonies. Of course, it is a bit hypocritical to hence rage about how evil Germany was, considering how many colonies the British and French had created. The only difference is that Germanys new colonies would have been in Europe. So that seems like a massive double standard to me, condemning the establishment of colonies in Europe, yet glossing over much more massive colonial empires elsewhere. Now, that being said - it still would comparatively to OTL way worse of course for the affected peoples. It surely would be no fun being Polish or Ukrainian ITTL (of course, it was also no fun being Ukrainian IOTL at that time...)

And yes, France WAS more militarist by any measure before WW1. It had WAY higher military spending than Germany, and it was WAY more militaristically driven than Germany, what with its really absurd and pathetic levels of revanchism over Alsace-Lorraine. Simply responding to that with tired old clichees about Prussia will not change that...

Douglas

March 19th, 2010, 04:01 PM

And yes, France WAS more militarist by any measure before WW1. It had WAY higher military spending than Germany, and it was WAY more militaristically driven than Germany, what with its really absurd and pathetic levels of revanchism over Alsace-Lorraine. Simply responding to that with tired old clichees about Prussia will not change that...

What ATL have I slipped into? Maybe per capita, but unquestionably Germany spent more than France...

1913-1914 Military Spending of the European Powers

Germany $60,000,000
Britain $50,000,000
France $40,000,000
Austria-Hungary $22,500,000
Russia $15,500,000
Italy $10,000,000

Susano

March 19th, 2010, 04:10 PM

What ATL have I slipped into? Maybe per capita, but unquestionably Germany spent more than France...

Well, duh, of course per capita. Any other measurement is meaningless!

wormyguy

March 19th, 2010, 04:10 PM

And really, all territories lost were the product of Russian imperialism anyways, all ethnically non-Russian.Finland I can go for, but the Ukraine, Belarussia, and even the Baltic states were every bit as "Russian" as most of the territories except for Danzig taken away in Versailles were "German."

Susano

March 19th, 2010, 04:18 PM

Finland I can go for, but the Ukraine, Belarussia, and even the Baltic states were every bit as "Russian" as most of the territories except for Danzig taken away in Versailles were "German."

Nonsense. The "Corridor" had a very much higher percentage of Germans than those territories had a percentage of Russians ("Great Russians" that is), and quite many territories that were German-majority and yet still ceded to Poland, and Alsace-Lorraine was in majority German-speaking at least (though identity issues get a bit complicated there, of course).

wormyguy

March 19th, 2010, 04:36 PM

IBC would be better in my position here, but Belarus was majority Russian-speaking in urban areas, and either Belarussian or Yiddish in rural areas. Nearly all Belarussians considered themselves to be Russian, and prewar Belarussian nationalism was confined to a few professors in Minsk. Similarly, the major Ukrainian cities including Kiev were majority Russian-speaking. It's kind of difficult to call Ukraine and Belarus "products of Russian imperialism" since they're core parts of the Russian cultural sphere. The Ukrainian and Belarussian languages are essentially pidgin language forms of Polish-influenced Russian historically spoken by peasants. Belarussian and Ukrainian are to Russian as Catalan is to Spanish, or Occitain is to French.

The Baltic states had as many Russians as most of the German territories ceded to Poland had Germans, and considering the disproportionate representation of people from the Baltic states in the Russian military hierarchy and positions of government authority, they certainly were at least a trusted and considered integral part of the Russian state.

Susano

March 19th, 2010, 04:45 PM

Actually, the local elite the Russian Empire based itself on in the Baltic, and form which it drew indeed over-proportionally many top officials and officers were the Baltic Germans. Its quite funny to see how many commanders the CP fought in WW1 on the East Front had German names... but not only was that a German group, it was also quite a small group. The nobility/gentry was German, the bourgeoisie in the largest cities (Riga, Tallin etc) German or Swedish, and the smaller cities and rural landscape Latvian or Estonian (with Lithuania the issue is even more clearcut has it had, outside Vilnius, only neglectable minorities of anything). There were in short really not many Russians in the Baltic at all.

You have a point about Belarus, though that is an Alsace-like situation. There were already back then Belarussian intellectuals promoting an own Belarussian identity, which is the reason the Bolsheviks bothered to create a Belarussian SSR at all. But that identity has of course always been shaky, up to and including modern days. So, while the Belarussians sure had no burning desire to be set free, their area was also not undoubtedly Russian...

The Ukrainian identity, OTOH, was already sufficiently well developed at that time. Maybe Kiev had a Russian majority, lingually, at the time, but then Prague had a German-speaking majority in the mid-19th century, and that didnt impede the Czech revival. As said, you have a point about Belarus, but about the Ukraine, less so. And who cares how similar the languages are? Occitan and Catalan, your comparisons, are also own languages, and more to the point, Ukrainian is an established language with an identity sprung up around it. Thus it doesnt matter how closely it is related to what other language.

wormyguy

March 19th, 2010, 05:01 PM

You are correct that the Russians favored the land-owning aristocracy in the Baltic states (who happened to be mostly German), just as they did everywhere else. That said, they certainly favored the land-owning aristocracy in the Baltic states quite a bit more than in other places, although that could have been because they were exotic and more "European."

Ukrainian nationalism was just about non-existent prior to the Soviet collectivization of farms. If you went and interviewed various Ukrainians in 1914, it would be quite some time before you got to one who considered himself Ukrainian first and Russian second. Indeed, many would tell you in perfect Ukrainian that the only language they spoke was Russian. The military of the Ukrainian People's Republic was all anti-Communists and Poles, not Ukrainian nationalists.

Lokari

March 19th, 2010, 05:02 PM

And really, all territories lost were the product of Russian imperialism anyways That's funny thing to write, since the majority of territories lost by Germany after WW1 were gained in the same event that the territories lost by Russia in WW1 were: partitions of Poland;)

Except Silesia which was gained in war against Austria and Alsace gained in war against France.

I Blame Communism

March 19th, 2010, 05:25 PM

IBC would be better in my position here,

What's that? It sounds like the socialist motherland is in danger! :D

but Belarus was majority Russian-speaking in urban areas, and either Belarussian or Yiddish in rural areas. Nearly all Belarussians considered themselves to be Russian, and prewar Belarussian nationalism was confined to a few professors in Minsk.

The key thing is the identity. The cities were Yiddish first, Russian second; the countryside was Belarussian with Yiddophones and Poles sprinkled all about; but the population lived overwhelmingly in the countryside.

As you say, "Belarussian" and "Russian" is no clear division at all. Belarussian nationalists were a small group of intelligentsia, and the peasants had no consciousness of being Belarussian (in the 20s, both the creation and eastward expansion of the Belarussian SSR led to local farmers explaining to the authorities in their fluent native Belarussian that they could only speak Russian and didn't know what this "Belorussia" nonsense was all about).

And of course Russian and Belarussian are really close. Your migrant from the provinces to Minsk is soon going to be speaking Russian or some sort of "mixed-wheat dialect" for convenience because the language question isn't of any importance to him.

So basically, Belarus was as seperate from Russia as Austria was from Germany. :p

Similarly, the major Ukrainian cities including Kiev were majority Russian-speaking.

Also true, although in the ex-PLC they were often Yiddish speaking, and there were towns reporting Ukrainian majorities in 1897 (Poltava, for one). That's a matter of language, though, not political identity, and Ukrainian political identity was far from universal, which isn't to start on seperatist, anti-Russian, prefers "German barons" Ukrainian political indentity.

The Ukrainian nationalist movement was essentially centred on the left-leaning middle classes, and its "Ukrainian Army" during the RCW was no more or less part of Ukrainian society and struggle than the Tsarist elite of military-landowning types and senior churchmen, or the industrial workers in the big cities, or the peasants who didn't want armies trampling on their fields, and their champions: Denikin, Lenin, Makhno. All these armies recruited lots of men from Ukraine.

And the nationalists declared "independent united Ukraine" after they'd lost Kiev and there wierd-little-brother-from-over-the-hill-who-does-things-differantly, the Ukrainian Galician Republic, had lost Lwow. They were, after all, essentially Kerenskyite in outlook.

So, Ukraine is no Belarus, but it's no prisonhouse-of-nations either.

It's kind of difficult to call Ukraine and Belarus "products of Russian imperialism" since they're core parts of the Russian cultural sphere.

I'm not quite sure what a "cultural sphere" is and prefer to think in terms of democratic self-determination tempered by real life. What I will say is that Germany got the Polish corridor exactly the same way Russia got Ukraine and Belarus. It's the situation circa 1918 that matters to me, and that was one where Belarus and Ukraine, given the choice, have an overwhelming chance of preferring some form of association with Russia to the alternatives.

The Ukrainian and Belarussian languages are essentially pidgin language forms of Polish-influenced Russian historically spoken by peasants.

The "Polish-influence" jazz is actually a discredited theory that was repeated long after its time in Russian nationalist rhetoric, I'm afraid. And as a Slavophile I can hardly complain about languages retreating to the farming village and coming back again: or where would that leave my beloved Czechs? ;)

Belarussian and Ukrainian are to Russian as Catalan is to Spanish, or Occitain is to French.

They're certainly very close. Czechs and Slovaks, English and Scots, Serbo-Croat... linguistic rigour is always subordinate to how closely related peoples develop and relate. It's a fascinating subject.

The Baltic states had as many Russians as most of the German territories ceded to Poland had Germans, and considering the disproportionate representation of people from the Baltic states in the Russian military hierarchy and positions of government authority, they certainly were at least a trusted and considered integral part of the Russian state.

Now this I disagree with. The Russians in the Baltic were concentrated in Riga, Tallinn, Dvinsk, and a couple of other spots like Port Baltic, and not that big a portion of the population at large (they did outnumber Germans in the big cities by 1897, however, Susano). And the "Baltic" presence in the Tsarist structure was actually Baltic-German, and had been on the down since Russification had started. WW1 was the end of it (note the language-change in the university of Tartudorpatyurievburggrad), with the large number of German names kicking around eager to change them.

The key thing, though, is that the Estonian and Latvian masses would much rather be autonomous in Russia than be ruled by their local crop of Teutonic Knights, who the Germans made no attempt to reign in during their stay.

Beer

March 19th, 2010, 05:25 PM

That's funny thing to write, since the majority of territories lost by Germany after WW1 were gained in the same event that the territories lost by Russia in WW1 were: partitions of Poland;)

Hey, just because you don´t have a Poland around, don´t make fun of a favourite austro-germano-russian pasttime!:p;):D

Lokari

March 19th, 2010, 05:39 PM

The "Corridor" had a very much higher percentage of Germans than those territories had a percentage of Russians ("Great Russians" that is), and quite many territories that were German-majority and yet still ceded to Poland
So what ? Polish majority towns and areas also were left in Germany.
It is true however that Russian Empire wasn't as interested in of the idea of large scale Russification of Polish territories as Germany was on Germanisation, but not that many territories ceded were having German majority even with soldiers and German administration counted in 1910 by German census itself:
http://web.ku.edu/%7Eeceurope/hist557/lect11_files/11pic2.jpg

I Blame Communism

March 19th, 2010, 05:48 PM

It's in any case disingenious to talk about the number of Great Russians in a non-Ruthene part of Russia, because the intra-Ruthene distinctions tend to vanish when they're away from home, not least because they're all "Russians" to the locals. This has happened many a time; most recently in Kaliningrad and Karelia.

Susano

March 19th, 2010, 05:51 PM

It is true that Russian Empire wasn't as interested in of the idea of large scale Russification of Polish territories as Germany was on Germanisation, but not that many territories ceded were having German majority even with soldiers and German administration counted in 1910 by German census itself:
http://web.ku.edu/%7Eeceurope/hist557/lect11_files/11pic2.jpg

Hm. I sense a familar theme here.:rolleyes:
Your source seems to be post-WW1, after a rather large flight of ethnic Germans from the ceded territories, in any case.

http://www.atlassen.info/atlassen/velhagen/andha06/picslarge/andha1914k047a.jpg

The area around Bromberg was a rather large-ish ethnic German territory. Of course, during the 20s the German population there dropped to near nothing... and also in the relative Polish majority areas, there was often a substantial German minority in the towns and cities.

And this Germanification/settlement nonsense is just that, utter nonsense. Yes, the Prussian state did try it, but only half-heartedly and with ridicolously small effects (unless you go back to the general "Repopulation" efforts of the early modern Prussia). It didnt change any ethnic composition anyhwere, certainly not in modern (post-French Revolution) times.

And also, what "Polish-majority" towns were "left" in Germany? Masuria and Upper Sileisa decided fair and square in plebiscites to stay with Germany - so they werent "left" there, they chose to. And it also makes calling them "Polish-majority" problematic. In the meanwhile, the border in the former provinces of Posen and West Prussia was so advantageous for Poland that there were certainly lo Polish-majority towns left in Germany anymore.

Except Silesia which was gained in war against Austria and Alsace gained in war against France.
Prussia gained Silesia from Austria, not Germany. Germany gained Silesia in the 12th century, when it voluntarily joined (i.e., recogniced the liegeship of the Holy Roman Emperor), due to the internal Polish conflicts.

And the Franco-German war was both provoked and declared by France, who in any case had taken the area from Germany some... well, granted, centuries before. But hey, the same is true about "lost" Polish areas.

Beer

March 19th, 2010, 06:05 PM

Ugh.

Dear Beer,
could you please stop giving ammunition to those whom you call "entente-wankers"?
Thanks,
The local CP
:rolleyes: Okay! Friede von einem Mitglied der Mittelmächte zum Anderen!:cool:

Mind, not that Id want to exonerate Lokari here. Some of his comments are just bad clichees
Brest-Litovsk was incredibly harsh. Never thought anything else. But Lokari is so set in his germanophobe ways, you get the itch just to give contra.
One should also mention that this peace came about after the Kerensky government rejected peace talks and tried (heh) to restart offensives, resulting into the total and utter collapse of the front. I am sure that without that the Russians would have gotten way more lenient terms.
Of course, then the remaining Entente powers came and topped that harshness and viciousness... Something the Entente-wankers conveniently overlook to often!

As for the outcome of a world with victorious CP, it would hardly be all sunshine. Yes, before WW1 the SPD was steadily increasing its electoral base, and there were also besides that several pushes for reform. [..]Here now, though, the reactionaries and militarists whove always stood against such reforms have been vindicated.[...] but the point is a total and utter German victory without any such problems will create majory problems in Germany by strengthening the reactionaries.
(And really, thats why I prefer Weimar PoDs. The loss of WW1 at least gained Germany a democratic republic!) This would only be the case with an early victory in 14/15. A victory in 1916 or later, too much has happened to stop the reform pressure. Yes, the militarists will still be a power in after-war Germany and the Empire will stay armed to the teeth for decades to come, but the reactionaries have lost in 16+. Too much internal problems open to the public and all that. No, in the case of victory after several serious, brutal bloodbaths and internal difficulties, which will be anything from 16 (even late 15) on, reforms after the war are a given. Const. monarchy, universal suffrage,... and much more sunshine and much less clouds for Europe in the rest of the 20th century.

So that seems like a massive double standard to me, condemning the establishment of colonies in Europe, yet glossing over much more massive colonial empires elsewhere. Now, that being said - it still would comparatively to OTL way worse of course for the affected peoples. It surely would be no fun being Polish or Ukrainian ITTL (of course, it was also no fun being Ukrainian IOTL at that time...) More peace and a stable Europe (with a rudimentary EU much earlier)under the CP would be a bad thing??? When you look at OTL and how badly some nations were screwed over by history, living under the CP argus is definitely preferable.

And yes, France WAS more militarist by any measure before WW1. It had WAY higher military spending than Germany, and it was WAY more militaristically driven than Germany, what with its really absurd and pathetic levels of revanchism over Alsace-Lorraine. Simply responding to that with tired old clichees about Prussia will not change that...Applause!

Lokari

March 19th, 2010, 06:06 PM

Your source seems to be post-WW1The source is from a book by German-American author Richard Blanke, described as having pro-German view in his book:) .It was published in 1993.
after a rather large flight of ethnic Germans from the ceded territories, in any case.In 1910 ? Of course a lot of Germans fled the poverty stricken Poland after WW1, due to various reasons. But I mentioned 1910 census, made by Germany itself-and even then there were few German majority areas.

Yes, the Prussian state did try it, but only half-heartedly and with ridicolously small effects (unless you go back to the general "Repopulation" efforts of the early modern Prussia). It didnt change any ethnic composition anyhwere, certainly not in modern (post-French Revolution) times.Before the Germanisation in 1815 the population of Posen had 23% Germans, in 1861 43%.

And also, what "Polish-majority" towns were "left" in Germany? Masuria and Upper Sileisa decided fair and square in plebiscites to stay with Germany - so they werent "left" there, they chose to The borders didn't reflect the exact voting lines. There are maps with voting areas marked, and final borders, where this can be seen.

Germany gained Silesia in the 12th century, when it voluntarily joined (i.e., recogniced the liegeship of the Holy Roman Emperor), due to the internal Polish conflicts.Holy Roman Empire is not Germany.

And the Franco-German war was both provoked and declared by FranceProvoked and created by Bismarck.

who in any case had taken the area from Germany some... well, granted, centuries before. But hey, the same is true about "lost" Polish areas. Was Poznan part of any German state before Parititons ?

More peace and a stable Europe (with a rudimentary EU much earlier)under the CP would be a bad thing???It would be as stable, as Eastern Europe under Soviet occupation. The nations occupied by Germany would seek ways to overthrow its rule, expect similiar situation as in Ireland, only on larger scale. Rivals of German Empire would exploit such large number of rebellious population.

When you look at OTL and how badly some nations were screwed over by history, living under the CP argus is definitely preferable.People in Central and Eastern Europe don't have a crystal ball, and they can't see in the future to know that Hitler will try to exterminate them. Becoming German ruled puppets, exploited for cheap labour and resources can't be really seen as something desired by any patriot in those nations.

(with a rudimentary EU much earlier)What makes you compare EU to Mitteleuropa plan ? The two are not the same and quite opposite. Only very extreme anti-EU activists argue that they are similiar.

Zajir

March 19th, 2010, 06:13 PM

On the subject of Belarus/Byelorussia while it is true that Belarussian identity was existent only among a few intellectuals, so was the Slavic Macedonian identity befor the Second World War, and yet with state support it managed to disloge Bulgarian identity in Macedonia, why couldn't idependent Belarus do the same?

Beer

March 19th, 2010, 07:04 PM

Holy Roman Empire is not Germany.http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/polar-bear-face-palm_thumbnail1.jpg
Lokari, I found out over the last days that your brain accepts only input that paints Germans as Überbaddies, but this statement is laughable. I won´t honour it with more than legal successor. Kingdom of Germany-HRE-German Empire.

Provoked and created by Bismarck. Sigh! It would be time to use the picture above again, but it would become to large a post!
Forgotten that France tried to pressure the later Wilhelm I. into submitting to their demands first? Bismarck just took the opportunity to teach France a lesson, when it arose.

It would be as stable, as Eastern Europe under Soviet occupation. The nations occupied by Germany would seek ways to overthrow its rule, and you expect similiar situation as in Ireland, only on larger scale. Rivals of German Empire would exploit such large number of rebellious population. Once again your germanophobia rears it´s head! The German Empire was NEVER as harsh in it´s occupations as Entente propaganda falsely boasted it. Others before me explained quite well, that your "Rebellion dream" is nothing more than that. A dream by someone who is blinded by prejudice.

Those nations don't have a crystal ball, and they can't see in the future to know that Hitler will try to exterminate them. Becoming German ruled puppets, exploited for cheap labour and resources can't be really seen as something desired by any patriot in those nations. Ah Hitler (waited for this name to pop up quite some time), Lokari forgetting that Russia(Ukraine famine and deportations rings any bells), Britain, France, etc. screwed them over (sometimes quite brutally) too.
Lokari I know you are unable to consider that Germany has just aims in the long run, but one has to try. German Mitteleuropa would have become an EU with much more economic punch over time.

What makes you compare EU to Mitteleuropa plan ? The two are not the same and quite opposite. Only very extreme anti-EU activists argue that they are similiar. Sigh! The "Mitteleuropa Plan" was defiled by Entente propaganda and revisionist historians! As pointed out in another thread, most critic points are taken out of context. Sources underlining the critic are dubious quite often.

As a last comment before I put you in the Troll cathegory: Are you reading the **** this Emory guy produces? Your germanophobia points that way.

Lokari

March 19th, 2010, 07:11 PM

Once again your germanophobia rears it´s head! The German Empire was NEVER as harsh in it´s occupations as Entente propaganda falsely boasted it.
It was harsh enough. The executions of civilians, burning of towns did happen, as did massive plunder and exploitation of population for foced labour. Of course not on the scale of Soviets-my statement was meant to state that such "stability" would be an illusion and result of opressive and authoritarian measures to keep the rebellions down.

I am sorry, you are extremely biased towards nationalistic German point of view( I mean HRE=Germany, France blamed for Bismarck's war etc), so I don't think there is a point in continued debate on this.

Beer

March 19th, 2010, 07:38 PM

It was harsh enough. The executions of civilians, burning of towns did happen, as did massive plunder and exploitation of population for foced labour. Of course not on the scale of Soviets-my statement was meant to state that such "stability" would be an illusion and result of opressive and authoritarian measures to keep the rebellions down.

I am sorry, you are extremely biased towards nationalistic German point of view( I mean HRE=Germany, France blamed for Bismarck's war etc), so I don't think there is a point in continued debate on this.
Me a nationalist? If you would say that to friends of mine they would get a fit of laughter, how you can be so wrong, Lokari.
I´m no nationalist, but you have lots of prejudice in you, that quite frankly, makes me want to show you the errors of that, even if I get a bit overboard. But it will not be much longer since I promised Susano: No more Entente-wanker food.
It is a fact you can read about in the national archives, that France put lots of pressure on the later Kaiser Wilhelm I. and was willing to go to war first! It´s just that Bismarck outsmarted them with the "Emser Depeche".
About HRE: It was not Germany in the modern sense, but it was run by Germans and the core territories were populated by german tribes too. The Kingdom of Germany (established latest with the coronation of Henry the Fowler, but in essence began earlier after not coroning a Carolingian around 911)grew to the HRE over time. It´s a direct succession.

Douglas

March 19th, 2010, 07:57 PM

I think it's laughable that a Versailles Treaty that put Germany down for a couple of decades economically and militarily is considered to be "harsh" and "nasty", while the necessarily military-enforced Mitteleuropa leads to a bright and shiny 20th century.

Versailles wasn't fun and games, but it didn't install French kinglings in Baden and the Saar and British duchies in Hanover and the Rhineland to rule over ethnic Germans while installing a "fair" customs union linking those new states directly to France and Britain.

Douglas

March 19th, 2010, 08:03 PM

Well, duh, of course per capita. Any other measurement is meaningless!

Well, given population numbers of 65 million and 41.5 million for Germany and France respectively, you get per capita expenditures of $0.92 for Germany and $0.96 for France...so lets ease of off the earlier statement, unless "WAY" has a new definition of 4%.

France WAS more militarist by any measure before WW1. It had WAY higher military spending than Germany, and it was WAY more militaristically driven than Germany, what with its really absurd and pathetic levels of revanchism over Alsace-Lorraine. Simply responding to that with tired old clichees about Prussia will not change that...

Also, lets be careful about "absurd and pathetic levels of revanchism", because that's a sword that cuts two ways starting in the 1930's.

Beer

March 19th, 2010, 08:27 PM

Also, lets be careful about "absurd and pathetic levels of revanchism", because that's a sword that cuts two ways starting in the 1930's.
There is quite a difference! A-L was a small part of France (not the 10% robbed of Germany in 1919) and not cutting of other parts of France like the "polish corridor" did with East Prussia. Especially in the light that the treaty after 1870/71 was never as unjust and revanchist as was Versailles.

About Mitteleuropa: See above posts, soiled by Propaganda and revisionist Historians. The new states in the East were always thought about like Dominions.(I find it laughable that the Entente-wankers excuse the rather heavy-handed ways Britain and France used to build their Empires, but take offence in the german ways which were normally far less violent)
Other sovereign nations joining Mitteleuropa would have been doing it with full rights granted.

Lokari

March 19th, 2010, 08:41 PM

The new states in the East were always thought about like Dominions. Can you give a source for that information ?
Or you mean by that that German viewed Central and Eastern Europe as region on pair with underdeveloped Australia or South Africa ? That speaks poorly of German attitude.

but take offence in the german ways which were normally far less violentYes, the Herero can speak a lot about that.

Other sovereign nations joining Mitteleuropa would have been doing it with full rights granted. Source please. But you argued that the states in MP don't count when talking about authoriarian rule of Germany, because they wouldn't be sovereign in the first place ?

Beer

March 19th, 2010, 09:35 PM

Can you give a source for that information ?
Or you mean by that that German viewed Central and Eastern Europe as region on pair with underdeveloped Australia or South Africa ? That speaks poorly of German attitude. I´ll gather some sources over the next week when i have better access. Naturally you try to paint it in pale light, why i´m not surprised? Germany and A-H could just have annexed them, like the Entente powers did so often and eagerly elsewhere, but the CP choose not to. The new states would have become semi-autonomous with internal self-rule, several steps above what they had before. I never said that the CP had only humanitarian goals, but their goals were far more humanitarian than what you got from the classic Entente Powers. Customs union at a time when trade wars were normal-right idea.
Giving the Baltics more self-rule than they had instead of simply annexing them-right idea. That this was not for a nice place in heaven after death only, is just logical. To this day, nations do nothing for the good feeling alone. But the CP wanted this for the stability and growth in Europe, instead of e.g. France who wanted just petty revenge and trying to destroy Germany at that time. The CP plans for Europe had the outlook for something greater, someday it should have encompassed the whole continent for wideranging stability. The "EU", just earlier.

Yes, the Herero can speak a lot about that. I should have set a bet that this would come sooner or later. One unfortunate incident against dozens in Algeria, India, Ireland, Sudan, etc..
Read the archives: education and medical services (for the natives too, by the way)were better in german colonies than in british or french ones. e.g. The german school in Tsingtau/Quingdao was the premier school (open to chinese kids, too) in the whole region and is even today one of the top schools in the city.

Source please. But you argued that the states in MP don't count when talking about authoriarian rule of Germany, because they wouldn't be sovereign in the first place ? Always trying to twist the words, hm? Take the Nederlands as example. Had the CP been victorious and the Nederlands wanted entry in the customs union, they would have been in with the same rights that Germany or A-H had.

Lokari

March 19th, 2010, 09:56 PM

Always trying to twist the words, hm?
Twisting words ?

You make the mistake to think about the new states as sovereign nations. As said above, this was never the intent.

Germany and A-H could just have annexed them, like the Entente powers did so often and eagerly elsewhere, but the CP choose not to. Funny, I never saw any French plan to settle hundreds of thousands of French colonists in annexed territories of Germany...

The new states would have become semi-autonomous with internal self-rule, several steps above what they had before. To be honest if West Galicia would be included in puppet Poland, Poles there would be in worse situation then before.

but their goals were far more humanitarian than what you got from the classic Entente Powers.So Germany treating Central and Eastern Europe as source of forced labour and exploiting it for mineral resources for German industry is humanitarian, while Entente pressing for self-determination of nations under opressive German rule is not ?

But the CP wanted this for the stability and growth in EuropeWhere did you did hear that ? Kaiser diaries ? Germany wanted it for its glory and power, and nothing else. Sorry; "stability and growth in Europe" by occupying millions and turning Eastern Europe into a colony ?

The CP plans for Europe had the outlook for something greater, someday it should have encompassed the whole continent for wideranging stability.Yes I am sure the other nations would be "thrilled" about this "stability" to work for their German masters:rolleyes: Just like they were about Napoleon's, Stalins or Hitler's(not to compare their methods, just to note how people react to conquest and control from abroad).

One unfortunate incident against dozens in Algeria, India, Ireland, Sudan, etc.. That wasn't an "incident" but a well planned and organised action by German officials Yes the German Colonial empire was smaller then others, hence less "incidents". And if you want to count, why not include German actions in China, hmmm ?
The german school in Tsingtau/Quingdao was the premier school (open to chinese kids, too) in the whole region and is even today one of the top schools in the city.No doubt due to German superior spirit of civilizing other less German and thus civilised nations. That's sarcasm if you didn't notice it :rolleyes:

education and medical services (for the natives too, by the way)were better in german colonies than in british or french ones. e.g
And yet they revolted. I wonder why ?
How ungrateful of those natives to revolt against their enlightened German benefactors. Surely such a behaviour is barbarism at its worst.

shillinger

March 19th, 2010, 10:26 PM

I have a feeling Ian will be coming to this tread.

LordIreland

March 19th, 2010, 10:27 PM

Guys...Please...focus. Austria, Austria, Austria...c'mon, look at the nice shiney Austria...good boys:D

Beer

March 19th, 2010, 11:08 PM

First, LordIreland, fear not! This will be my last repost to Lokari on this thread. I´m truly fed up with his germanophobia!

So Germany treating Central and Eastern Europe as source of forced labour and exploiting it for mineral resources for German industry is humanitarian, while Entente pressing for self-determination of nations under opressive German rule is not ? Yeah, the Entente, squeezing out their colonies, holding them under their thumb in a quite obvious no less opressive way! Funny, how the Entente only "rises for self-determination" when it´s about territories they don´t control.

Where did you did hear that ? Kaiser diaries ? Germany wanted it for its glory and power, and nothing else. If you would have read my post wholly, instead of just what you want, you could have seen that I never denied that Germany wanted a bit of Prestige out of it, BUT they had higher goals, something the typical english/french plans of that time lack.

That wasn't an "incident" but a well planned and organised action by German officials Yes the German Colonial empire was smaller then others, hence less "incidents". And if you want to count, why not include German actions in China, hmmm ? Even taking the smaller size of the german colonial possessions into account, revolts were far more seldom than in other colonial empires! The Herero incident was a tragedy (by the way, the german public was less than pleased with the conduct in the Herero campaign, {chastisement yes, but not something like that}, except some loudmouth nutjobs). But since you are so well versed in the histories of the Entente, your "they can do no wrong" favourites, you´ll forget their colonial "indiscretions" as usual, hmm?
Like the "opium war" (so much about the "wonderful" conduct of the british in China) and dozens more.

No doubt due to German superior spirit of civilizing other less German and thus civilised nations. That's sarcasm if you didn't notice it :rolleyes: LOL! The Entente nations saw themselves as the navel of the world too. Germany at least tried to do something beside milking them, instead of say GB which was happy just milking her colonies most of the time and later did anything to whitewash it as "civilizing".

Lokari, you are someone who bends backward to soil anything German, your posts are evidence enough to show that you want to see Germany only negative. What situation crooked you so?

Beer

March 19th, 2010, 11:46 PM

Since this thread should be about Austria, not the skewed visions of some Ententewankers (if I can the word get copyrighted?:p;)), some more about the possible fate of the land of Kaiserschmarrn (very tasty)in this TL.
If A-H manages to survive the next decade with reforms made fast enough, the internal situation will improve. The potential still in A-H is often underappreciated. A-H had around 52 Mil. people in 1914, making them the third-largest state in Europe, after Russia and Germany. Austria could become a major economic power, if that potential is harnessed.

But it depends much on how they get through the next years. A break-up would point to a greater Germany, with Hungary an close ally. Only with reforms is there any hope to stay together in the long run. The CP victory has silenced the most fanatic nationalists in the minorities, Prestige was won. A breathing space, too. Now the clock is ticking.

Lokari

March 20th, 2010, 12:36 AM

Guys...Please...focus. Austria, Austria, Austria...c'mon, look at the nice shiney Austria...good boys:D
Without Galicia for sure. Both Poles and Ukrainians will get their own states, and Germany will divide Galicia between them, satisfying no one.
The fact that two nations in the empire had gained their own states will stir up demands from Czechs and Croats, which will further erode the situation within AH-at that time bands were becoming a serious problem, and whole regions were out of control from central government.

Economy will be in shambles as well-with strikes in Bohemia, and loss of Galicia.

Besides national demands, you will have social trouble in Hungary, with possibility of communist insurgents.

Germany might be tempted to dissolve AH, annex German parts and occupy the rest together with Hungary. However that might face serious opposition from nobles and conservatives.
Otherwise expect an expeditionary corpse from German Empire sent to crush down rebellions and stabilise the country.

I Blame Communism

March 20th, 2010, 11:24 AM

I should have set a bet that this would come sooner or later. One unfortunate incident against dozens in Algeria, India, Ireland, Sudan, etc..

Ireland?

In the politest possible terms, piss off.

Which is to say... while I agree that all empires were responsible for horrendous crimes, and that imperial Germany's colonial record (when one considers all the factors including the nature of its colonies, variation across time and space, and so on) didn't stand out as worse to any degree that would suggest a differant attitude towards "natives" from Berlin than from London or Paris, I find the inclusion of Ireland betrays a lot of ignorance abouts it history.

British crimes against Ireland (some famous ones include behaving like it was still the 17th century in the, uh, the 17th century; failing to save everyone from Malthusian dieback like we were, good heavens, indifferant to the plight of the poor in Dickensian times; and using rather thuggish police action) hardly rank with German crimes, or ours or anybody's crimes, in Africa.

Here's a thought I was having today: if Britain is to be anachronistically accused of some form of "criminal neglect" over the Irish Potato Famine and this constitutes genocide, I think it's fair for me to accuse the Irish state of aiding and abetting Hitler by refusing to open the Treaty Ports. That probably killed a few hundred Allied seamen and several thousand Russian civilians, sooooo...

Personally I believe that the Irish policy during the Emergency, while stupid, was understandable given the time qand the circumstances and no grounds for finger-pointing. I very rarely hear such charitable remarks about any British policy in Ireland.

Douglas

March 20th, 2010, 06:57 PM

Janprimus

March 20th, 2010, 08:42 PM

Without Galicia for sure. Both Poles and Ukrainians will get their own states, and Germany will divide Galicia between them, satisfying no one.
The fact that two nations in the empire had gained their own states will stir up demands from Czechs and Croats, which will further erode the situation within AH-at that time bands were becoming a serious problem, and whole regions were out of control from central government.

Economy will be in shambles as well-with strikes in Bohemia, and loss of Galicia.

Besides national demands, you will have social trouble in Hungary, with possibility of communist insurgents.

Germany might be tempted to dissolve AH, annex German parts and occupy the rest together with Hungary. However that might face serious opposition from nobles and conservatives.
Otherwise expect an expeditionary corpse from German Empire sent to crush down rebellions and stabilise the country.
Without Galicia? Austria-Hungary, a member of the central powers and faithful ally of the German Empire, wins the great war in TTL. Sure Austria Hungary faces internal problems, however I can not see, why Austria-Hungary would have to give up territories. IMHO giving up territories will only (futher) deteriorate the internal prestige of the Austo-Hungarian Empire. Dissolving Austria-Hungary, basically one of the few nations in Europa, which is friendly towards the German Empire, IMHO is not a wise thing to do. However an expenditionary from the German Empire could be necessary.

Janprimus

March 20th, 2010, 09:17 PM

Apparently it is "Germanophobia" to think that a Central and Eastern Europe ruled by German princes in direct economic union with Berlin for Berlin's benefit isn't going to be some shiny happy place...if only the Entente hadn't spoiled it by trying to set up independent states in Eastern Europe after imposing the harsh, undeserved treaty of Versailles on peace-loving Germany!

As for the British and French colonial empires, Beer, no one has said they were good! Colonial empires are bad. The colonial empire of Germany in Eastern Europe would have been bad.

Also, I note you ignored my point that for a "fair customs union", Mitteleuropa was building up an impressive list of German-born princes-turned-into-monarchs to rule over all of those "independent" states.
I'm convinced that the Central Powers would have made similar (or their own) 'mistakes' as the Entente with their treaty. Peace-loving? None of the Great Powers of Europe was peace loving on the eve of the Great War, all of them share responsibility for this war.

German-born-princes-turned-into-monarchs was nothing new, for instance many new monarchies in the 19th century had 'german' monarchs: Romania: Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen and Bulgaria: von Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha. However before the Great War no great power could dominate Mitteleuropa, the German Empire, the Russian Empire and Austria Hungary kept eachother in check; concluding these new monarchies aren't the problem, German dominance would be the problem. On the other hand in a situation with more independent states in central Europe(, however they will have to have some treaty with the German Empire) Germany would be the de facto dominant power. Wouldn't it be better, if the German Empire is compensated with some French colonies instead*? (* = I agree that colonial empires are bad, however they would have had a different attitude.)

shillinger

March 20th, 2010, 09:27 PM

Apparently it is "Germanophobia" to think that a Central and Eastern Europe ruled by German princes in direct economic union with Berlin for Berlin's benefit isn't going to be some shiny happy place...

Not really. Its Germanophobia to say it would have turned into a Nazi wet dream just because teh Germans are eeevol.

Generally, people on the board seem to be divided on the subject with one group thinking a CP victory would have been a utopia, and the other thinking a CP victory world would turn out to be more grimdark then Warhammer40000. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

Lokari

March 20th, 2010, 09:46 PM

Without Galicia? Austria-Hungary, a member of the central powers and faithful ally of the German Empire, wins the great war in TTL. Sure Austria Hungary faces internal problems, however I can not see, why Austria-Hungary would have to give up territories. IMHO giving up territories will only (futher) deteriorate the internal prestige of the Austo-Hungarian Empire. Dissolving Austria-Hungary, basically one of the few nations in Europa, which is friendly towards the German Empire, IMHO is not a wise thing to do. However an expenditionary from the German Empire could be necessary.

Austro-Hungary willingly agreed to lose Galicia under German pressure in WW1 by 1916.
As to internal problems-they are so many that it would be a very long list to point out all of them.

Mikestone8

March 20th, 2010, 10:00 PM

Austro-Hungary willingly agreed to lose Galicia under German pressure in WW1 by 1916.

And it does have the side-effect of leaving the Austrian half of the Monarchy with a German majority - though if they try annexing Serbia (Ugh! sounds a bit like the US annexing Haiti!) they could lose that benefit.

Janprimus

March 20th, 2010, 10:06 PM

Austro-Hungary willingly agreed to lose Galicia under German pressure in WW1 by 1916.
As to internal problems-they are so many that it would be a very long list to point out all of them.

It all comes down to how and when the Great War ends. If the central powers win this war, it is not impossible that Austria-Hungary is allowed to keep Galicia-Lodomeria or is Austria-Hungary going to be compensated? Furthermore a shorter Great War and a victory for Austria-Hungary will result in fewer problems for the Dual Monarchy.

Lokari

March 20th, 2010, 10:20 PM

If the central powers win this war, it is not impossible that Austria-Hungary is allowed to keep Galicia-Lodomeria or is Austria-Hungary going to be compensated?
Losing Galicia was welcomed by certain political circles in AH. The alternative was either to attach Congress Poland to AH in Triple-Monarchy-which German conservatives and Hungarians opposed, or to leave Galicia in AH-which would cause problems with puppeting Poland for Germany, and dissent in AH from both Ukrainian and Polish population.

Furthermore a shorter Great War and a victory for Austria-Hungary will result in fewer problems for the Dual Monarchy.
This thread is about late CP victory.

Janprimus

March 20th, 2010, 10:52 PM

The fact that Austria-Hungary is victorious in this late CP victory, will result in less problems for Austria-Hungary. Let say that Austria-Hungary gives up Galicia-Lodomeria, how will they be compensated? Losing Galicia-Lodomeria disturbs the balance between Cisleithania and Transleithania, something that will not be welcomed by the Austrians; however OTOH AH probably needs to be reformed into a Quadruple (or Pentuple (?) with Galicia-Lodomeria) monarchy if they want to survive.

Douglas

March 21st, 2010, 01:46 AM

Not really. Its Germanophobia to say it would have turned into a Nazi wet dream just because teh Germans are eeevol.

Generally, people on the board seem to be divided on the subject with one group thinking a CP victory would have been a utopia, and the other thinking a CP victory world would turn out to be more grimdark then Warhammer40000. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

Where did I say any of that? Nowhere. I was merely pointing out that a German-dominated Europe is not going to be anything like the EU, where everyone has a (technically) equal say. It was going to be Europe run by Germany, for Germany.

AuroraBorealis

March 21st, 2010, 05:18 AM

It all comes down to how and when the Great War ends. If the central powers win this war, it is not impossible that Austria-Hungary is allowed to keep Galicia-Lodomeria or is Austria-Hungary going to be compensated? Furthermore a shorter Great War and a victory for Austria-Hungary will result in fewer problems for the Dual Monarchy.

a Habsburg on the throne of Poland... wasn't that the plan....

Franz Ferdinand's son's, barred from succession to the Empire, would they be similiarly barred from a reconstitued Poland that included Galicia and Lodomeria or Ukraine.

Of course Serbia not annexed to Bulgaria could be annexed in compensation and united with Croatia and Bosnia and become the third part of the triple monarchy...Austria-Hungary-Yugoslavia. Though its not what I would envision as most desirable or even probable.

Beer

March 21st, 2010, 01:53 PM

Apparently it is "Germanophobia" to think that a Central and Eastern Europe ruled by German princes in direct economic union with Berlin for Berlin's benefit isn't going to be some shiny happy place...if only the Entente hadn't spoiled it by trying to set up independent states in Eastern Europe after imposing the harsh, undeserved treaty of Versailles on peace-loving Germany!
As for the British and French colonial empires, Beer, no one has said they were good! Colonial empires are bad. The colonial empire of Germany in Eastern Europe would have been bad.
Also, I note you ignored my point that for a "fair customs union", Mitteleuropa was building up an impressive list of German-born princes-turned-into-monarchs to rule over all of those "independent" states.
Hi, Douglas!
If you´d make the effort and come to Germany, we have several archives open to the public where you can see original papers and/or copies about the Mitteleuropa Plan.Unspoiled by Entente propaganda! Mitteleuropa would have been great for our good, old continent. Stability, more peace and prosperty. To quote myself:"I never said that the CP had only humanitarian goals, but their goals were far more humanitarian than what you got from the classic Entente Powers.
Customs union at a time when trade wars were normal-right idea.
Giving the Baltics more self-rule than they had instead of simply annexing them-right idea.
That this was not for a nice place in heaven after death only, is just logical. To this day, nations do nothing for the good feeling alone. But the CP wanted this for the stability and growth in Europe, instead of e.g. France who wanted just petty revenge and trying to destroy Germany at that time. The CP plans for Europe had the outlook for something greater, someday it should have encompassed the whole continent for wideranging stability. The "EU", just earlier."

About the Princes: It might seem unusual to an American (from your stance I think you are one, if not please correct me), but this Head-of-State planting was done in Europe (by all sides) for centuries. Nothing new for Europeans. Yes, the new states would be in the german orbit, but (like the german Länder) with internal self-rule (and wide-ranging, but not full external self-control). Quite an improvement over what e.g. the Baltics had before! Esp. for that time, when the Great Powers pushed smaller nations around like chess pieces.

I Blame Communism

March 21st, 2010, 02:41 PM

Hi, Douglas!
If you´d make the effort and come to Germany, we have several archives open to the public where you can see original papers and/or copies about the Mitteleuropa Plan.Unspoiled by Entente propaganda! Mitteleuropa would have been great for our good, old continent. Stability, more peace and prosperty. To quote myself:"I never said that the CP had only humanitarian goals, but their goals were far more humanitarian than what you got from the classic Entente Powers.

We made plenty of nauseating propaganda, but I'm glad we won in 1918.

Customs union at a time when trade wars were normal-right idea.

Forcing small countries into total economic dependence against their will - wrong idea.

Giving the Baltics more self-rule than they had instead of simply annexing them-right idea.

Whut? Estonia and Latvia were being given over to crusader knights who thought the Ludendorff regime was too liberal. They'd been too reactionary for Alexander III, too. Certainly, Estonians and Latvians would have preffered autonomy under Russia. British expeditonary leaders were worried that that Latvians, having been the longest under occupation, would prefer the Bolsheviks, and they probably would have.

That this was not for a nice place in heaven after death only, is just logical. To this day, nations do nothing for the good feeling alone. But the CP wanted this for the stability and growth in Europe, instead of e.g. France who wanted just petty revenge and trying to destroy Germany at that time.

"Petty revenge"? I'm fed up with this legend. General Boulanger horrified the statesmen of the Third Republic, who were cautious, sober man and helped France and Germany have stable relations for four decades. When the break came, it was Germany that was attacking France, after all. Only then did France make it a goal to regain provinces lost against the will of the people in 1871, and note that the A-L legislature voted for union with France in 1918. Extreme circumstances, sure, but France was more popular with Alsatians than Germany was with "Mitteleuropans", that's clear.

"Destroy Germany"? The whole "seperate states" business, and the Rhine frontier? Playing devil's advocate, that was to protect France from another devstating invasion, which seems to me just as valid an excuse (ie not very) as Germany's desire for "stability and prosperity" was for eviscerating Russia.

The CP plans for Europe had the outlook for something greater, someday it should have encompassed the whole continent for wideranging stability. The "EU", just earlier."

Is "wide-ranging stability" a codeword for "German semicolonial rule"?

About the Princes: It might seem unusual to an American (from your stance I think you are one, if not please correct me), but this Head-of-State planting was done in Europe (by all sides) for centuries. Nothing new for Europeans. Yes, the new states would be in the german orbit, but (like the german Länder) with internal self-rule (and wide-ranging, but not full external self-control). Quite an improvement over what e.g. the Baltics had before! Esp. for that time, when the Great Powers pushed smaller nations around like chess pieces.

The new states that arose from Entente victory were allowed and encouraged to be democracies, and genuine left as independent actors in actuall alliances. Germany wasn't bashful about trying to create utter dependencies. "German barons" is just a snappy phrase: the Ukrainian marrionette was a local "hetman".

I've also states that cheap villification of Russian rule doesn't change the fact, accepted by British officers serving in a specifically anti-Bolshevik mission, that Latvians preffered Bolsheviks to Germans is "independent Latvia" wasn't on the table.

General Fabian

March 21st, 2010, 03:05 PM

AH cannot hold together. A victory in WWI may extend the life of the empire. A triple monarchy may extend it a little longer. However, it is still fragile and a knock such as a major economic downturn would leave it in ruins.

Beer

March 21st, 2010, 04:12 PM

We made plenty of nauseating propaganda, but I'm glad we won in 1918. Since you´re british, naturally you are, but in the long run a victory by us would have been better.

Forcing small countries into total economic dependence against their will - wrong idea. As I wrote to Douglas, come to Germany and look into the archives, before you make your call.

Whut? Estonia and Latvia were being given over to crusader knights who thought the Ludendorff regime was too liberal. They'd been too reactionary for Alexander III, too. Certainly, Estonians and Latvians would have preffered autonomy under Russia. British expeditonary leaders were worried that that Latvians, having been the longest under occupation, would prefer the Bolsheviks, and they probably would have. Now coming with "probably would"? You know that the british leaders were not impartial in their opinions! The CP had lost, this is a whole different situation. You manipulate with POV comments.

"Petty revenge"? I'm fed up with this legend. General Boulanger horrified the statesmen of the Third Republic, who were cautious, sober man and helped France and Germany have stable relations for four decades. When the break came, it was Germany that was attacking France, after all. Only then did France make it a goal to regain provinces lost against the will of the people in 1871, and note that the A-L legislature voted for union with France in 1918. Extreme circumstances, sure, but France was more popular with Alsatians than Germany was with "Mitteleuropans", that's clear. And I´m fed up with the "Oh so peaceful Entente nations" legend! France was itching to regain A-L well before the war. Ever read french newspapers and some official papers of that time? Peaceful, my ...! And the vote of 1918: Loosing such a war does not gain you voters.

"Destroy Germany"? The whole "seperate states" business, and the Rhine frontier? Playing devil's advocate, that was to protect France from another devstating invasion, which seems to me just as valid an excuse (ie not very) as Germany's desire for "stability and prosperity" was for eviscerating Russia. There is a difference between weakening Russia for decades and total ripping apart Germany, like this plans proposed.

Is "wide-ranging stability" a codeword for "German semicolonial rule"? I won´t honour this dung with more than wide-ranging stablity = wide-ranging stability.

The new states that arose from Entente victory were allowed and encouraged to be democracies, and genuine left as independent actors in actuall alliances. Germany wasn't bashful about trying to create utter dependencies. "German barons" is just a snappy phrase: the Ukrainian marrionette was a local "hetman".
I've also states that cheap villification of Russian rule doesn't change the fact, accepted by British officers serving in a specifically anti-Bolshevik mission, that Latvians preffered Bolsheviks to Germans is "independent Latvia" wasn't on the table. I don´t villificate russian rule, but you, as said above, try to manipulate the discussion with biased POVs. The british officers saw what they wanted/should see.
Funny, that this "rise for self-rule" of the Entente came only after the Americans were on board and much more, only when it would weaken their enemies. France and GB were quite adept in striking down such movements, when it was against their interests!

I Blame Communism

March 21st, 2010, 04:28 PM

Since you´re british, naturally you are, but in the long run a victory by us would have been better.

There are wars I wish Britain had lost, or come out worse from, or not fought.

As I wrote to Douglas, come to Germany and look into the archives, before you make your call.

Do these archives contain evidence that Germany had no intention of forcing the Mitteleuropan states into economic partnership?

Now coming with "probably would"? You know that the british leaders were not impartial in their opinions!

True. They were bitterly anti-Bolshevik, more conciliatory towards Germany than their allies, and had engineered the presence of German forces in the Baltic countries after the armistice, so if they think the Latvians were pro-Russian or even pro-Bolshevik if it was that of Germany, that's prtety telling. For firmer evidence, look at the (Red) Latvian Legions, which were raised in 1916 but pretty well all went Bolshevik.

The CP had lost, this is a whole different situation. You manipulate with POV comments.

The Latvians would have loved the Germans as elder brothers if they'd won? That would explain why they were raising volunteer battalions for the tsar against this contingency, then...

And I´m fed up with the "Oh so peaceful Entente nations" legend! France was itching to regain A-L well before the war. Ever read french newspapers and some official papers of that time? Peaceful, my ...!

Which official papers? When? Who were they produced for? There's extensive evidence for Franco-German pragmatic exchange before WW1. It was the French who came up with the whole Egyptian co-operation thing. I'd have to check sources for me, but there's plenty.

And the vote of 1918: Loosing such a war does not gain you voters.

And I acknowledged this. But Germany could never have won a vote in Latvia or Belarus.

There is a difference between weakening Russia for decades and total ripping apart Germany, like this plans proposed.

And it is? Germans are special and Russians are not? You're still denying self-determination for cynical ends.

I won´t honour this dung with more than wide-ranging stablity = wide-ranging stability.

So you don't have any way of prroving that Germany would have been Mr. Nice Guy to its client states, you mean?

I don´t villificate russian rule, but you, as said above, try to manipulate the discussion with biased POVs. The british officers saw what they wanted/should see.

As I said, "better German than Bolsh" was official British policy.

Funny, that this "rise for self-rule" of the Entente came only after the Americans were on board and much more, only when it would weaken their enemies. France and GB were quite adept in striking down such movements, when it was against their interests!

Absolutely. And?

Beer

March 21st, 2010, 06:27 PM

There are wars I wish Britain had lost, or come out worse from, or not fought. Wow, this makes you a minority on the Isles for sure! Rather seldom a standpoint there.

Do these archives contain evidence that Germany had no intention of forcing the Mitteleuropan states into economic partnership? Well, forcing itself into something is rather difficult (Germany and A-H are mitteleuropean, too;)), but joking aside: The Plans were for the CP states to form a customs union to bring more economic weight to bear in peacetime and to generate more wealth. There was hope, that one day it would encompass the continent. I admit that there where some groups who wanted to force others into Mitteleuropa, BUT this were fringe groups without real influence! These loudmouths were instrumentalizied by Entente propaganda and revisionist historians to discredit the Mitteleuropa Plan.
The real plan, supported by most involved in this planning, was to let others see what could be done with this economic market and then other european states would flock into Mitteleuropa all by themselves.

Which official papers? When? Who were they produced for? There's extensive evidence for Franco-German pragmatic exchange before WW1. It was the French who came up with the whole Egyptian co-operation thing. I'd have to check sources for me, but there's plenty. Pragmatic yes, but the "We want A-L back" crowd grew steadily. Revanchism and pragmatic work are not mutually exclusive.

And it is? Germans are special and Russians are not? You're still denying self-determination for cynical ends. No, Germans and russians are equal, but the point is: Even with B-L, Russia would have come back on to the stage after some decades, since most of the Rodina was still in Russian hands. It would have taken Russia some time, but some of the plans for Germany on the other hand, would have terminated Germany as a state. Something even B-L could not do to Russia.

So you don't have any way of prroving that Germany would have been Mr. Nice Guy to its client states, you mean? As I wrote in other posts, I know that the german aims were not pure humanitarian, no nations at that time were, there should be a pay off. But the german plans would have seen to a rapid reconvalencence of the states after the war. Not the wars and crisises they got.

Absolutely. And? It´s rather irritating to hear the "Germany has EEvvviiillll Intentions" chorus again and again, but the Entente, which did the same or more gets a pat on the back!
The Mitteleuropa Plan was decades ahead of it´s time, but no, "Germany has evil intentions even when they have good intentions" one has to hear here often.
Annoying!