AHC: Negotiated peace at the end of WWI.

The idea of a negotiated peace to end the First World War has been prominent in threads on this website for as long as I have been a member. What I want to achieve with this thread is to discuss what would the final settlement of this sort of negotiated peace look like.

Now, the scenario:

POD is the usual "no USW/Zimmerman telegram leads to no US entry" deal. ITTL, the Entante is getting 30% less of everything in terms of materiel, so a few final offensives are started in late 1917. and early-to-mid 1918. before both sides start negotiations in (insert neutral city here).

Now, the question I'm asking here is can the two opposing blocks (Entante and Central Powers) reach a peace settlement that both sides would find agreeable, and if the answer is yes, what would the conditions be?

At a glance, the Central Powers appear to be in a better position, but both A-H and the Ottomans are at the end of their strenght in mid 1918. Only Germany has a favourable position, and it is blocaded. On the other side of the hill, no unsecured loans mean that the Entante powers are being gradually starved of supplies for the war, and in the French case, even food.

I would also like to stress that the point here isn't to create a "draw" as the result of WWI, only to make both parties agree to a peace treaty.

Well, if people actually listen to Karl I this time, there's a chance of that happening. There would be large differences in terms if the negotiations occurred before the Spring Offensive, after it lost momentum, or when the Allies counterattacked it though.

The most immediate problem is, as the French themselves (anecdotally) put it, "Alsace-Lorraine. Alsace-Lorraine. Alsace-Lorraine." A peace that gives France Alsace-Lorraine is unacceptable to Germany, and one that doesn't is unacceptable to France. Impasse.

Also, consider the fact that, whatever one might think about the Treaty of Versailles, France was so wrecked by the long war on French soil that it needed reparations. Germany isn't likely to pay them. And as for the United Kingdom, any peace that doesn't involve some kind of compensation to Belgium for the invasion and the Rape of Belgium and just lets the Germans get off free (as it would be seen from the British perspective) would be a major humiliation, and judging by the tendencies of the court system that even the comparatively liberal Weimar Republic inherited from the Kaiserreich IOTL (not recognising war crimes as a legitimate concept, and regularly excusing simple thugs, let alone well-respected glorious veterans of the fatherland TM, for violent crimes as long as they could claim they were acting from "patriotic" motives) then it's pretty clear that Germany won't give such compensation.

On the military front, this is where things get really bad for the prospect of a negotiated peace (as articulated very well by Mikestone8 on another thread). Either the USA has already intervened, in which case the Entente knows that it only has to hold on for a bit longer and then it will get a peace fully advantageous to it rather than a compromise peace, or it hasn't, in which case Germany is occupying vast swathes of France and Belgium and knows that the Entente powers will soon be no longer able to fund the massive effort of the Western Front so the Central Powers know that they only have to hold on for a bit longer and then they will get a peace fully advantageous to them.

The point is that one side (regardless of which side this is) will be convinced that it can win and doesn't need to compromise, and when the potential gains of a victor's peace are so large then compromise that ends the war immediately looks unattractive in comparison to continuing the war until victory is achieved.

For a compromise to be a viable option, both sides have to be convinced that outright victory is so hard that it's not really worth the effort of continuing the war for it. To create a situation where that's the case is, to put it mildly, not easy.

Could it be doable however if 1917 (minus the American intervention and the supplies that that such intervention permitted to the Entente) plays out more or less historically with an early Spring Gambit (the Michael offensive) being launched earlier in 1918 than OTL, and to worse effect? This basically would mean that the Entente is lacking its supplies but it isn't squandering what little it has left on an offensive...and the Germans, seeing that the Entente will soon be bled financially soon, throws its own last resources into an offensive to put it on favorable negotiating ground.

With the inevitable Entente counter attacks, the front lines remain more or less static. the Entente is in an ever so slightly stronger position but still hemorrhaging money at an unsustainable rate...but by the same token the Germans by this point have quite noticeably bled themselves dry of any war materials and fresh men they might have.

In this case, as I see it, 1918 is the decisive year and while in theory it could go either way, perhaps some saner minds could prevail when everyone realizes that they are all on their last legs and that it'd be suicidal to try and play a bloody game of chicken even as all of the belligerent parties are starting to bleed out from their own unique mortal wounds, whether in terms of money, resources, will, or (perhaps most importantly) men being available to continue the war?

Perfidious Albion said:

Germany is occupying vast swathes of France and Belgium and knows that the Entente powers will soon be no longer able to fund the massive effort of the Western Front so the Central Powers know that they only have to hold on for a bit longer and then they will get a peace fully advantageous to them.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't they have to sue for peace after a certain point due to the blockade and the starving population? Was the government concerned about a putsch by frustrated civilians at the time?

Tom Colton said:

Wouldn't they have to sue for peace after a certain point due to the blockade and the starving population? Was the government concerned about a putsch by frustrated civilians at the time?

Click to expand...

Without America in the war the blockade won't be tight enough to starve Germany. Also if Russia is knocked out the Germans can loot grain from Ukraine.

Geredis said:

Could it be doable however if 1917 (minus the American intervention and the supplies that that such intervention permitted to the Entente) plays out more or less historically with an early Spring Gambit (the Michael offensive) being launched earlier in 1918 than OTL, and to worse effect? This basically would mean that the Entente is lacking its supplies but it isn't squandering what little it has left on an offensive...and the Germans, seeing that the Entente will soon be bled financially soon, throws its own last resources into an offensive to put it on favorable negotiating ground.

With the inevitable Entente counter attacks, the front lines remain more or less static. the Entente is in an ever so slightly stronger position but still hemorrhaging money at an unsustainable rate...but by the same token the Germans by this point have quite noticeably bled themselves dry of any war materials and fresh men they might have.

In this case, as I see it, 1918 is the decisive year and while in theory it could go either way, perhaps some saner minds could prevail when everyone realizes that they are all on their last legs and that it'd be suicidal to try and play a bloody game of chicken even as all of the belligerent parties are starting to bleed out from their own unique mortal wounds, whether in terms of money, resources, will, or (perhaps most importantly) men being available to continue the war?

Click to expand...

An interesting idea. Personally, though, I think it doesn't work because although it reduces the military factor I mentioned (that at all points in time one side is confident of absolute victory) it doesn't get rid of the facts that Germany is still in a much stronger position than the Entente (both financially and in terms of the fact that much of France is occupied) and that they aren't likely to be able to agree on a settlement that satisfies both sides, as I suggested above.

Tom Colton said:

Wouldn't they have to sue for peace after a certain point due to the blockade and the starving population? Was the government concerned about a putsch by frustrated civilians at the time?

Click to expand...

deathscompanion1 said:

Without America in the war the blockade won't be tight enough to starve Germany. Also if Russia is knocked out the Germans can loot grain from Ukraine.

Click to expand...

The blockade was important, yes, and it did a lot of damage to Germany (I disagree with the assertion that it was materially improved by US entry—it was already virtually impossible for Germany to trade with any nation by sea, and Germany's trade with, e.g., the Netherlands, which was so damaging to the blockade's efficacy, couldn't be changed by US entry). But deathscompanion1 makes a good point in regard to Ukraine; the breadbasket of the former Russian Empire is at the Kaiserreich's fingertips and judging by its OTL actions in occupied Belgium and France, and its courts' later conduct, the Kaiserreich would probably be ruthless enough to take it.

And as for civilians, until it was already clear that Germany was losing the war and then the government started doing mad things like sending the High Seas Fleet to face off against the Grand Fleet in a proper fleet action (which virtually everyone in Germany knew was suicide), there was simply not as much dissent in the German Army as one might like to think, and the various capitalist groups (even the Social Democrats) weren't especially revolutionary and tended to never outright rebel against the government (again, let me stress that this is before it became clear that German defeat was inevitable). With the Kaiserreich-era German Army overwhelmingly conservative and fiercely anti-revolutionary even for capitalist revolutionaries, let alone communists, (The Coming of the Third Reich talks about this), I don't think a coup d'état would stand any realistic chance of success.

Perfidious Albion said:

The blockade was important, yes, and it did a lot of damage to Germany (I disagree with the assertion that it was materially improved by US entry—it was already virtually impossible for Germany to trade with any nation by sea, and Germany's trade with, e.g., the Netherlands, which was so damaging to the blockade's efficacy, couldn't be changed by US entry).

Click to expand...

Actually it was.

The Northern Neutrals (Scandinavia plus the Netherlands) got most of their imports from America, which, as a belligerent, could now control these supplies at source, not allowing them any surplus which might be re-exported. Also, US belligerency gave the Entente a virtual monopoly on coaling stations, to the point where all neutral shipowners had to co-operate or go out of business.

Mikestone8 said:

Actually it was.

The Northern Neutrals (Scandinavia plus the Netherlands) got most of their imports from America, which, as a belligerent, could now control these supplies at source, not allowing them any surplus which might be re-exported. Also, US belligerency gave the Entente a virtual monopoly on coaling stations, to the point where all neutral shipowners had to co-operate or go out of business.

Click to expand...

Fair enough; I retract the claim, then. Thanks for the information.

Don't forget that while France and Britain are hanging in, Italy is toast. Absent the American intervention Italy will have to get out of the war, which means the Germany and A-H now only face the western front. Additionally Italy becomes a potential conduit of supply for Germany/A-H. A no USA in, and Russia and Italy out scenario helps the Ottomans only a little bit. IF they manage to avoid collapse before a negotiated peace they will lose the Middle East, with the possible exception of northern Iraq.

Without US money, goods, and troops the French are on a very ragged edge. Yes, they don't want anything that does not give Alsace-Lorraine back, but I see the Germans not trying the Micahel offensive in the spring of 1918 but rather straightening lines, letting the Allies bleed themselves while food from the Ukraine comes on line. They still hold big chunks of a very important piece of France. While the Germans have all these expectations, it won't happen unless France collapses - and while in this scenario they are better off they can't dictate. If they limit themselves to getting their overseas possessions back (from Japan, and UK in Pacific & Africa), no territorial demands in France (maybe a DMZ on French side), and restoration of Belgium as a neutral, maybe with economic concessions to Germany, France and Britain may not like it but they may very well take it rather than keep fighting.

The British blockade will be less effective with trans-shipments from Scandanavian, Holland, Italy etc available to Germany as well as Ukrainian food. Furthermore the USA will not be happy with a continuing British interference with trade...

Perfidious Albion said:

The most immediate problem is, as the French themselves (anecdotally) put it, "Alsace-Lorraine. Alsace-Lorraine. Alsace-Lorraine." A peace that gives France Alsace-Lorraine is unacceptable to Germany, and one that doesn't is unacceptable to France. Impasse.

Click to expand...

How badly would the French government and military be prepared to bleed for Alsace-Lorraine though? To the bitter end of utter national financial and manpower exhaustion, and into the teeth of a mass mutinies, a civil war or even a Red revolution?

deathscompanion1 said:

Without America in the war the blockade won't be tight enough to starve Germany. Also if Russia is knocked out the Germans can loot grain from Ukraine.

Click to expand...

Germany doesnt have means to pay for the imports, and Ukraine (especially its transport system) is thoroughly wrecked at that point, it would take time to Ukraine start exporting foodstuff. In OTL Germany did not manage to get significant quantities before their retreat, why would this ATL be different there?

Perfidious Albion said:

Germany is still in a much stronger position than the Entente (both financially and in terms of the fact that much of France is occupied)

Click to expand...

How is Germany stronger financially? It had been running war on debt since 1914. Its pre-war financial position was uncomparable to the entente, it was not an investor country.

sloreck said:

Don't forget that while France and Britain are hanging in, Italy is toast.

Click to expand...

Why? After Cadorna finally got sacked, their situaton improved immensely, diaz was right man for the job.

A few points I think should be made clear.

NO US Entry (OTL DOW April 6th 1917) means that the CPs are experience a lot less pressure compared to OTL.

1917 saw reverses for teh CPS but also some of their most spectacular sucesses.

I assume that 1917 would run almost unchanged from otl - just the supply situation for the Entente is slowly becoming worse.

Russia is out of the war in 1918 and Brest Litovsk means that the CPs supply situations is SLOWLY getting a bit better.

NO US entry means also the Germany would NOT be pressured to do its OTL spring offensive as its now clear that time runs FOR the CPS and not against.

Even a few brigades of German (and Austrian) troops will tilt the balance in teh middle east (Spare troops from Russia! not goint to the Western front - no offensive) and some Germans to improve Balkans and Italian Fronts too will not hurt a Western defensive strategy.

So after Brest Litovsk its time to end the war - much depends who will do the first step.

Actually I assume the side who proposes peace first is the moral winner now.

Germany reached its formemost goal: - break the French/Russian threat. A-H and the OE still face trobles and so will probably pushing peace, so they can concentrate on restabilizing their empires.

Germany will point out that it still holds much of Belgian territory and s nice slice of France, While A-H (Bulgaria) points to the Balkans and Italy - CPs troops hold sizeable chunks.

Thus giving up territory owned before the war is out of question, but Germany will be able to be "generous"

I think Germany will be able to have a divide and conquer strategy.

Offering Britain and the Commonwealth a status quo ante without reparaations is a good start. Belgium is easily given back independence - probably with the condition that belgium is not allowed fortifications near the German border. W bit of money is also nothing Germany might offer Belgium.

Britain would then not be willing to continue the war for a FRENCH Alsace Lrraine - France thus might be forced (stabbed in the back) to give up its demands.

Itaky might we the one that gets the worst of it It has to be punished for its betrayal - Return Libya and Dodecanes to the OE. Give up other colonies to Germany (maybe too compensate Germany for the Japanese occupied territory) Surrender the Fleet, limitations on troops and fortifications.

Richter von Manthofen said:

Actually I assume the side who proposes peace first is the moral winner now.

Britain would then not be willing to continue the war for a FRENCH Alsace Lrraine - France thus might be forced (stabbed in the back) to give up its demands.

Click to expand...

1. Wouldn't that by default be Karl I of Austria-Hungary, who'd been pressing for peace since 1916? All Wilhelm II would need to do would be to back him up on that.

2. I sense the whiff of Francofascism and "À Berlin!" mark II...

Vault Dweller said:

How badly would the French government and military be prepared to bleed for Alsace-Lorraine though? To the bitter end of utter national financial and manpower exhaustion, and into the teeth of a mass mutinies, a civil war or even a Red revolution?

Click to expand...

It's not so much that they would especially want to continue to bleed as that to stop it, and thus to implicitly concede that France was defeated and all the death and sacrifice had been for nothing, would come across as much, much worse. That's not just my supposition; that must have been what they thought (before the US entry to the war, that is) IOTL, or else they wouldn't have continued the war.

As for your questioning tone: That's pretty much what they did IOTL; the French leadership gambled that if they continued the war it would be won before the total collapse of France. They won IOTL but what we should note is that they were willing to make the gamble, even after such events as the Army mutinies that meant there was a very serious risk of what you proposed.

To Richter von Manthofen: The United Kingdom went to war (in name, I know) for the sake of Belgium. If the UK gives up, Germany has invaded and thoroughly ruined Belgium (the Rape of Belgium wasn't Nazi-level nastiness, of course, but it wasn't remotely nice) and then got away with it scot-free (since Germany, as I argued, will refuse to give Belgium compensation). The UK is in the same position that France is in: to continue might be bad, but to give up will probably be seen as worse (again: if this hadn't been the way they thought, they would have given up IOTL), up until the stage where the UK is no longer capable of fighting on any longer (which isn't exactly what I'd call a negotiated peace, that's what I'd call an outright CP victory).

Richter von Manthofen said:

Itaky might we the one that gets the worst of it It has to be punished for its betrayal - Return Libya and Dodecanes to the OE. Give up other colonies to Germany (maybe too compensate Germany for the Japanese occupied territory) Surrender the Fleet, limitations on troops and fortifications.

Click to expand...

What will Germany give up for the OE to get it's stuff back? By the end of 1917 the British have the Levant and Iraq and the CP has no capacity to take it back. The OE logistics tail was overstretched as it was. The Germans could replace the OE armies 1 for 1 in the middle east with Stosstruppen, and they would still be outnumbered 2 to 1, and low on supplies. If the Ottomans want anything, anywhere, the Germans will have to get it for them, which means trading things they have taken in Europe proper. Same for Colonies. If Germany plays hardball within Europe, they will get nothing outside of it.

Unfortunately for the CP, they cannot dictate a peace as the Entente did.

Deckhand said:

What will Germany give up for the OE to get it's stuff back? By the end of 1917 the British have the Levant and Iraq and the CP has no capacity to take it back. The OE logistics tail was overstretched as it was. The Germans could replace the OE armies 1 for 1 in the middle east with Stosstruppen, and they would still be outnumbered 2 to 1, and low on supplies. If the Ottomans want anything, anywhere, the Germans will have to get it for them, which means trading things they have taken in Europe proper. Same for Colonies. If Germany plays hardball within Europe, they will get nothing outside of it.

Unfortunately for the CP, they cannot dictate a peace as the Entente did.

Click to expand...

OE: start of 1918 the Brits stood at Jerusalem - and Bagdad - offensive operations (Mesopotamia) were halted because of logistical problems. Without US support problems will be worse and the Germans could prop up the ottomans (More transport and supplies - just a little). I don't say the Ottomas bet back the Brits, but the OTL advances of 1918 will be diminisehed at best.

You can make a peace with status quo ante (borders before the war) or status quo (frontline) - Germany still holds a big part of France, so it would be in Germany favor if the peace is status quo - but Germany does NOT want (really they don't want all that additional Frenchmen), so the will be willing to go for status quo ante (including colonies) - that means its ally the OE will get back the 1914 borders (France will be the part that is pressing the Brits for this). In Italy much of Venetia/Friuli is occupied by the CPs - that can be "traded" for Dodecanes and Libya + colonies - Germany + AH is pissed off by Italys betrayal and even OTL the Entente largely disregarded Italys demands - Betetre conditions in France is nicer than better conditions for Italy.

Richter von Manthofen said:

OE: start of 1918 the Brits stood at Jerusalem - and Bagdad - offensive operations (Mesopotamia) were halted because of logistical problems. Without US support problems will be worse and the Germans could prop up the ottomans (More transport and supplies - just a little). I don't say the Ottomas bet back the Brits, but the OTL advances of 1918 will be diminisehed at best.

You can make a peace with status quo ante (borders before the war) or status quo (frontline) - Germany still holds a big part of France, so it would be in Germany favor if the peace is status quo - but Germany does NOT want (really they don't want all that additional Frenchmen), so the will be willing to go for status quo ante (including colonies) - that means its ally the OE will get back the 1914 borders (France will be the part that is pressing the Brits for this). In Italy much of Venetia/Friuli is occupied by the CPs - that can be "traded" for Dodecanes and Libya + colonies - Germany + AH is pissed off by Italys betrayal and even OTL the Entente largely disregarded Italys demands - Betetre conditions in France is nicer than better conditions for Italy.

Click to expand...

So the Entente is willing to go for a status quo ante bellum despite the French and British emotional investment in Alsace-Lorraine and Belgium respectively? How?

Certainly what you've suggested—a status quo that arbitrates in favour of the Germans in every way (they get off scot-free from the Rape of Belgium thus rendering all the years of war and sacrifice for the British pointless, they keep Alsace-Lorraine thus rendering all the years of war and sacrifice for the French pointless, they retain African colonies that they can't possibly get back unless the Entente is kind enough to hand them over)—would be accepted by Germany. Accepted by the Entente? I doubt it.

machine3589 said:

The idea of a negotiated peace to end the First World War has been prominent in threads on this website for as long as I have been a member. What I want to achieve with this thread is to discuss what would the final settlement of this sort of negotiated peace look like.

Now, the scenario:

POD is the usual "no USW/Zimmerman telegram leads to no US entry" deal. ITTL, the Entante is getting 30% less of everything in terms of materiel, so a few final offensives are started in late 1917. and early-to-mid 1918. before both sides start negotiations in (insert neutral city here).

Now, the question I'm asking here is can the two opposing blocks (Entante and Central Powers) reach a peace settlement that both sides would find agreeable, and if the answer is yes, what would the conditions be?

At a glance, the Central Powers appear to be in a better position, but both A-H and the Ottomans are at the end of their strenght in mid 1918. Only Germany has a favourable position, and it is blocaded. On the other side of the hill, no unsecured loans mean that the Entante powers are being gradually starved of supplies for the war, and in the French case, even food.

I would also like to stress that the point here isn't to create a "draw" as the result of WWI, only to make both parties agree to a peace treaty.

Click to expand...

One possibility might be this:
- Germany loses its colonies to Britain and France
- Belgium and Luxembourg remain independent countries
- status quo ante bellum for France in Europe
- The Ottomans get some bits of Russian Armenia lost in 1878, i.e. Kars, Batumi and Ardahan.
- Bulgaria gains Vardar Macedonia, Austria-Hungary gains Montenegro and Italy gains Albania
- Germans keeps its gains from Brest-Litovsk

It's a peace that gives something to everyone, it being a compromise peace, but ultimately it doesn't really satisfy anybody, so queue round 2.

Perfidious Albion said:

So the Entente is willing to go for a status quo ante bellum despite the French and British emotional investment in Alsace-Lorraine and Belgium respectively? How?

Certainly what you've suggested—a status quo that arbitrates in favour of the Germans in every way (they get off scot-free from the Rape of Belgium thus rendering all the years of war and sacrifice for the British pointless, they keep Alsace-Lorraine thus rendering all the years of war and sacrifice for the French pointless, they retain African colonies that they can't possibly get back unless the Entente is kind enough to hand them over)—would be accepted by Germany. Accepted by the Entente? I doubt it.

Click to expand...

Read my post - I wrote that the Germans would give some money to Belgium... - and the sentence before (damn spelling of myself - you know a bit of dyslexia on my part) I wrote about reparations...

With the provision the US is out time plays into German hands, so its likely that the Entente is willing to give up something.

Look at it from the other side: germany (and the otehr CPs) spemt years of sacrifice .- and now they SHOULD GIVE UP their conquests for NOTHING

With Russia defeated the Entente lost each credible demand that Germany had "lost" (unless the US is in) - Italy just had faced a terrible defeat (Caporetto).

The BEST the ENtente could hope in the "US out" scenario is a status quo ante - which basically MEANS handing BACK the colonies. My version of the NEgotiated peae also lets France slip off easily (no territorial losses basically)

Belgium free (UK can claim mission accomplished).

IMHO thats quite a good offer from Germany

What is an alternative - "status quo":

Germany loses colonies
Germany GETS Almost all of Belgium and good chunk of northern France
A-H gets half of Venetia...