Our Treaty of Versailles

[Nicole]

Well, most of the hotspots were over neighboring ethnicities- Germans in Polish Corridor and other Polish lands caused Germans to get angry, for example. If Serbia is oppressing their Croat minority, there's no Croat nation-state to get angry...

[Susano]

No, but it will be a hotspot of unrest, and even if theres no Croat State outside, theres always much potential to abuse ANY unrest by any state for own gains...

[benedict XVII]

IIRC, the most anger for the Italians was about Fiume and Istria, so add it to the package, but the entire Dalmatian coast seems a real stretch.

Also, I would give Ruthenia to Poland. That way, Poland will be the only country with a Ukrainian minority, limiting the number of possible tensions. Will also make the Czechs less concerned about asking for Russian intervention if Germany threatens them again.

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

It seems a lot of people here don't understand what Dalmatia is. Dalmatia is NOT the entire Croatian coast. Even if you give the Italians all of Dalmatia, it will be separated from Fiume by the coast of Croatia proper. You're all giving the Italians more than they actually asked for.

I wouldn't give them all of Dalmatia myself. There are so many Slavs in the area that a conflict with Yugoslavia is inevitable, and Yugoslavia would probably win. Give them Albania instead, either as a protectorate or through personal union, and avoid the rise of Ataturk so that they still get their sphere of influence in Asia Minor. Even if the March on Rome is not avoided, Mussolini by his own self is no danger.

Also, the thought crossed my mind of creating a Ruthenian state from Transcarpathia, northern Bukovina, and some areas in Poland, not bordered by the Soviet Union though. This would solve Romania's and Czechoslovakia's Ukrainian problem, but it might aggravate Poland's.

[Othniel]

Scale down Yugoslavia! Give them Bosnia...

[Andrei]

I think a plebiscite should be organised in Sudetenland as well as in Austria.
They would probably join Germany in this case , thus keeping Germany content.

About Dalmatia , I think the Italians should recieve only some cities , since only the cities had Italian population.

Also , Hungary should keep the Hungarian speaking parts in Northern Croatia and Vojvodina .

Germany should keep Danzig and West Prussia.
Uniting Poland and Lithuania might be a good ideea .

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Andrei

I think a plebiscite should be organised in Sudetenland as well as in Austria.
They would probably join Germany in this case , thus keeping Germany content.

Maybe sometime in the future. An immediate combination of Austrian and Germany won't be acceptable to the Entente.

The Sudetenland I was always given to understand was geographically important for giving the Czechs a defensible border.

About Dalmatia , I think the Italians should recieve only some cities , since only the cities had Italian population.

Okay, so let's just give the Italians what they asked for (can someone post that on a map) and give Albania an Italian prince for a King (the Albanians themselves asked about that, so it shouldn't be that hard a sell).

Also , Hungary should keep the Hungarian speaking parts in Northern Croatia and Vojvodina .

That seems reasonable.

Germany should keep Danzig and West Prussia.

Agreed.

Uniting Poland and Lithuania might be a good ideea .

Agreed. And give em Memel for a port.

I think we maybe give Ruthenia to the Poles.

[Andrei]

Originally Posted by Glen Finney

Maybe sometime in the future. An immediate combination of Austrian and Germany won't be acceptable to the Entente.

The Sudetenland I was always given to understand was geographically important for giving the Czechs a defensible border.

Maybe , but if Germany is content and everybody sees communism as the greatest threat , they won't have to defend that border.
I guess the Austrians and Sudets could wait some 15 years for the plebiscite , though.

Originally Posted by Glen Finney

Okay, so let's just give the Italians what they asked for (can someone post that on a map) and give Albania an Italian prince for a King (the Albanians themselves asked about that, so it shouldn't be that hard a sell).

I don't have a map , but AFAIK the Italians wanted the Dalmatian coast which was held by the Venetians until Venice was partitioned between Austria , France and Russia , and possibly Ragusa( Dubrovnik ).

Originally Posted by Glen Finney

Agreed. And give em Memel for a port.

That's easy . Even in OTL Memel voted to become a part of Lithuania

Originally Posted by Glen Finney

I think we maybe give Ruthenia to the Poles.

Could work better this way , a federation of Poles , Lithuanians and Ukrainians. And we could give Northern Bukovina to them , because it was inhabited mostly by Ukrainians and Poles.

Also , Transilvania should go to Romania as in OTL , because the peole of Transilvania voted to become part of Romania on the 1st of December 1918 , before the Romanian troops came in. Besides , the Romanian-Hungarian border seems to respect the ethnical border.
However , the Hungarians in Eastern Transilvania should recieve a degree of authonomy.

Eupen and Malmedy should remain German.
South Tirol ( not Trentino ) should remain Austrian .

[luakel]

Originally Posted by Glen Finney

I think we maybe give Ruthenia to the Poles.

Well, AFAIK, Hungary has more historical claim to that area than the Poles, and besides, Poland's going to be pretty big in TTL anyway.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Andrei

Maybe , but if Germany is content and everybody sees communism as the greatest threat , they won't have to defend that border.
I guess the Austrians and Sudets could wait some 15 years for the plebiscite , though.

I always liked 25 years, ie a generation, myself. Gives a nice cooling down period and a chance to make the case for staying with current borders. Also appeals to politicians because they likely won't be the ones who have to deal with it.

I don't have a map , but AFAIK the Italians wanted the Dalmatian coast which was held by the Venetians until Venice was partitioned between Austria , France and Russia , and possibly Ragusa( Dubrovnik ).

That's sorta what I thought, but others seem to have different information.

That's easy . Even in OTL Memel voted to become a part of Lithuania

Really? When did that happen?

Could work better this way , a federation of Poles , Lithuanians and Ukrainians. And we could give Northern Bukovina to them , because it was inhabited mostly by Ukrainians and Poles.

Something like that, although I doubt the Ukrainians/Ruthenians get in the name of the federation, more likely to be called Poland Lithuania for historical reasons and population size.

Also , Transilvania should go to Romania as in OTL , because the peole of Transilvania voted to become part of Romania on the 1st of December 1918 , before the Romanian troops came in. Besides , the Romanian-Hungarian border seems to respect the ethnical border.

I didn't know about the vote. But yeah, I think that the combo of Romanians controlling things on the ground, the population being mostly Romanian, and the Hungarians being on the losing side all make it likely that we keep those Romanian borders as is.

However , the Hungarians in Eastern Transilvania should recieve a degree of authonomy.

Well, that can be suggested. Don't know how it will shake out in practice, though.

Eupen and Malmedy should remain German.

Let them have a pleblicite.

South Tirol ( not Trentino ) should remain Austrian .

Why? Wasn't most of this area Italian speakers? Italy won't be pleased if it is given to Austria.

[Nicole]

Actually, the area in the Tyrol annexed by Italy (south of a natural border) can be divided into the Sudtirol, a german-speaking area, and the Trentino, which speaks Italian.

[Glen]

I'd say give them the South Tyrol...it never led to any wars in OTL. But I could also be persuaded towards Trentino only.

[Nicole]

Originally Posted by Glen Finney

I'd say give them the South Tyrol...it never led to any wars in OTL. But I could also be persuaded towards Trentino only.

Indeed, I think they'll go with the natural border since it's more defensible.

[benedict XVII]

Originally Posted by Andrei

Eupen and Malmedy should remain German.

Malmédy should become Belgian, just like Moresnet and a couple of other villages. They were historically part of the Principality of Stavelot, and had a mostly French-speaking population. If a plebiscite had taken place, Eupen and Sankt-Vith would have probably remained German.

But I insist on demilitarization of the left bank of the Rhine, otherwise completely unacceptable for French and Belgians.

[Grimm Reaper]

I thought that Czechoslovakia got the Sudetenland because it was a historical part of Bohemia(Czechia) and had been for centuries. Further, the basis for giving that to Germany all but guarantees most of the Polish Corridor being taken from Germany.

[Nicole]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

I thought that Czechoslovakia got the Sudetenland because it was a historical part of Bohemia(Czechia) and had been for centuries. Further, the basis for giving that to Germany all but guarantees most of the Polish Corridor being taken from Germany.

Hm? Wasn't much of the Polish Corridor ethnically German, or passed through ethnic German land?

And giving the Sudetenland to the Czechs on the basis of Bohemia should mean that West Prussia should be an all-or-nothing affair too, I'd say...

[LordKalvan]

Sud Tyrol (or Alto Adige, if you use the Italian name) was claimed by Italy to put the border at the Alpine watershed. Trentino alone would not give Italy a good defensive border as the Brenner pass.

OTL, Italy got Zara, Istria and Fiume (the last, after a lot of troubles; including D'Annunzio coup de main, and the establishment of the Free City).
According to the London Treaty, Italy was supposed to get all of Dalmatia, as well as Carniola, besides what they got, and a protectorate over all of Albania (pre-WW1, Albania was divided into 2 spheres of influence: Italy in the south, and A-H in the north). Ragusa (Dubrovnik) and Spalato (Split) were another bone of contention.
The problem is that it is true that the cities were mostly italian-speaking, and the hinterland serbo-croat speaking: however, a separation like it was carried out at OTL Versailles increased the ethnic tensions, and substantially did not make anyone happy.

IMHO, the big issue was the creation of Yugoslavia: not only this was a unhistorical nation (the Serbs never controlled so large a territory), but it was clearly designed to create a counter-weight in the Balkans to Italian ambitions. IMHO again, the creation of this artificial Southern Slav union (in theory - effectively the Serbs were dominating the kingdom) was also contrary to the spirit of self-determination and nationalities, in practice if not in theory. The differences among the peoples involved (at least five or six of them, without going to look for minor ethnicities: Slovenes, Croats, Bosnian moslems, Serbs, Albanians, Montenegrins) were so huge (in terms of culture, religion, alphabet, history) that Yugoslavia was kept together just by the serbian army (pre-WW2), and by the charisma of Tito (and again the army) in the period 1945-1990. When the political situation made it possible (like in WW2, or in the 1990s) Yugoslavia became a free-for-all. Not even just a clear-cut civil war scenario, but multiple factions fighting each other).

The best solution would have been not to overcompensate Serbia: the serbian-majority areas of Bosnia, a part of the Krajna (not sur about the name: it's the triangle just north of Belgrade, which was Hungarian before the war) and possibly an acceptance of the serb-sponsored coup in Montenegro (even if Montenegro had a secular history, and was a co-belligerant with the entente) should have been more than enough. Don't forget that Serbia was effectively out of the war, and the remnants of Serbian army had to be rescued from valona and Scutari, re-equipped, fed and taken to the Saloniki beach-head.

Croatia (including the Croat portion of Bosnia) and Slovenia might be independent (or Slovenia might be federated with Austria). This would not have solved all of the problems (the Bosnian moslems, for example, or the tricky border between Croatia and Hungary) but would have been much, much better than what happened OTL.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by LordKalvan

Sud Tyrol (or Alto Adige, if you use the Italian name) was claimed by Italy to put the border at the Alpine watershed. Trentino alone would not give Italy a good defensive border as the Brenner pass.

South Tyrol it is, then.

OTL, Italy got Zara, Istria and Fiume (the last, after a lot of troubles; including D'Annunzio coup de main, and the establishment of the Free City).
According to the London Treaty, Italy was supposed to get all of Dalmatia, as well as Carniola, besides what they got, and a protectorate over all of Albania (pre-WW1, Albania was divided into 2 spheres of influence: Italy in the south, and A-H in the north). Ragusa (Dubrovnik) and Spalato (Split) were another bone of contention.
The problem is that it is true that the cities were mostly italian-speaking, and the hinterland serbo-croat speaking:

I say give Italy most of these. The precedence of Venice seems sound, and there are Italians in the cities, and the Albanians themselves proposed an Italian prince for King at one point. It might just prevent the rise of Mussolini.

however, a separation like it was carried out at OTL Versailles increased the ethnic tensions and substantially did not make anyone happy.

Which example are you thinking of here?

IMHO, the big issue was the creation of Yugoslavia: not only this was a unhistorical nation (the Serbs never controlled so large a territory), but it was clearly designed to create a counter-weight in the Balkans to Italian ambitions....The best solution would have been not to overcompensate Serbia: the serbian-majority areas of Bosnia, a part of the Krajna (not sur about the name: it's the triangle just north of Belgrade, which was Hungarian before the war) and possibly an acceptance of the serb-sponsored coup in Montenegro (even if Montenegro had a secular history, and was a co-belligerant with the entente)

Well, yes and no. The A-H Southern parts united in the Republic of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs, but they ended up voting to join Serbia in a new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes before the Paris Peace Conference. The Powers would have to reverse that.

The annexation of Montenegro does appear fishy, and maybe THAT should have been reversed by the Powers at Paris. Making Montenegro independent and giving the Italian concessions seems like quite enough to remove from the future Yugoslavia. It may well fall apart, but again I don't see it starting a World War (and OTL it didn't).

should have been more than enough. Don't forget that Serbia was effectively out of the war, and the remnants of Serbian army had to be rescued from valona and Scutari, re-equipped, fed and taken to the Saloniki beach-head.

That's true, and one of the reasons I'm less concerned with the feelings of the Serbs here. They had to essentially be rescued, so they can't expect as much as otherwise. But they get plenty in my proposal, just by allowing the vote to stand, which also upholds some degree of self-determination.

Croatia (including the Croat portion of Bosnia) and Slovenia might be independent

They started out that way (see above).

(or Slovenia might be federated with Austria).

Not going to happen, IMO.

This would not have solved all of the problems (the Bosnian moslems, for example, or the tricky border between Croatia and Hungary) but would have been much, much better than what happened OTL.

Well, the big things we want to do here is get a more peaceful world out of Versailles in an alternate that is actually plausible and that deals with the situation as it was in 1919.

So what do you think of my suggestions spawned of yours?

[Strategos' Risk]

Anyone want to put their mouth where there... mouth is and try to role-play this out, or at least organize this instead of just creating a new map every few posts that everyone ignores by the end of the thread page?

Like so.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Strategos' Risk

Anyone want to put their mouth where there... mouth is and try to role-play this out, or at least organize this instead of just creating a new map every few posts that everyone ignores by the end of the thread page?

Like so.

Well, why don't you go for it?

The only problem I see with role playing it out is, that while it might come up with some interesting results, its not necessarily going to give us a truly plausible AND better result.