Treaty_of_Versailles questions.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Svetonius21

Province of West Prussia was inhabited mostly by Germans (about 2/3), but Corridor was not whole province-it was smaller, lacked biggest cities in region-Danzig and Elbing, where population was about 90% german. Teritory of future Corridor, according to german 1910 census were 58% polish 42% german, including troops which stationed here.

With that ethic ratio, Germany wins easily in a plebiscite.

[JakeKr]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

With that ethic ratio, Germany wins easily in a plebiscite.

Without German settlers, soldiers and administration, the population of Germans would probably be around 15-20% if not smaller. Since Kashubs were only small part of the Polish population in the region annd overwhelmingly voted for Polish parties, and unlike Silesians didn't have pro-German sympathies it is doubtful that any victory is possible for Germans.

[JakeKr]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

No, more like prewar Germany with the Kaiser having less power. A militaristic constitutional Monarchy also describes the UK in 1909 quite well. Ireland was not in continual revolt, why do yo assume a Poland will be? Yes, it could happen, but it could also be peaceful.

.

UK was not German Empire. Were there plans to ethnically cleanse millions of Irishmen to make room for British settlers ? Also Poland was far larger, and in the center of Europe-making it easy for opposing powers to supply Polish resistance with material support.
Anyway Poles already revolted against German rule after Kalisz Pogrom and later after Brest Litovsk talks when Chelm was given to Ukrainians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk

In Poland, which was not mentioned in the treaty, its signing caused riots, protests and an end to any support for the Central Powers.

[Zaius]

Originally Posted by JakeKr

Without German settlers, soldiers and administration, the population of Germans would probably be around 15-20% if not smaller.

Were they that numerous? I’d like to see a source.

[JakeKr]

Originally Posted by Zaius

Were they that numerous? I’d like to see a source.

Yes, part of the Germanization policy was to send as much German officials and military to Polish territories(Poles conscripted to German army were sent away from Polish territories)
The number of German military and administration settled in Polish territories controlled by Germany is estimated at around 378,000 in addition to around 154,000 settlers.
Germany and Poland: from war to peaceful relations Władysław Wszebór Kulski page 24 Syracuse University Press, 1976

[Svetonius21]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

With that ethic ratio, Germany wins easily in a plebiscite.

Not easily, definely. Result depends from many factors (like including emigrants who moved elswhere or not etc.) You can't be sure that Germany wins, Corridor was not Silesia-unlike Silesian Poles those from West Prussia were almost 100% catholic, also they voted for polish candidates to Reichstag prior to ww1 wich was not always the case in Silesia. Anyway in 1939, if plebiscite is hold even if former inhabitants of those region are allowed to vote and Poles who settled there after 1920 are not, I'm sure Poland wins. By comparision with Slovakia-one slovakian writer has said, if there was plebiscite in Slovakia in 1918 "to what country you want belong to" majority would choose Kingdom of Hungary, 10 years later no one except for Hungarian minority would vote for Hungary. So in 1939 Germany may have argument to retake Corridor-but it will be argument of force, not argument of ethnic composition.

[Svetonius21]

Also etnic composition of Posen (62 to 38) was almost identical. So ethnic claims to Corridor are equally accurate to ethnic claims to Posen.

[lukedalton]

A-H was a valuable asset. A-H has a similar power level to France, and was much more useful than Italy in WW2. While A-H has major issues, it has value. No ally is perfect.

A-H after the war greatly outlive is usefullness, as her internal problem far outstrip the benefit, expecially wilth all the other problem Germany had. There will be support on the immediate, but in the middle and long run Berlin will wash her hand of this patchwork nation.

You greatly exaggerate. Spain and Scandanavia will not care. Italy will have other issues it cares about. The Baltic, Poland and Ukraine will have fears of Russia/Soviet retaking them. It will not be near as bad as you make it sound.

In Poland and Ukraine the only thing that will permit the continue existentence of the pro-Germany goverment, will be the presence of German troops. Communism will make in road throug europe as OTL regardeless of nation and as OTL the Germans will not be really seen as a better option, except by the former russian nobility escaped by Russia the rest of the people will see the new ruler simple as some kind of thief who use them for the betterment of a foreign nation. Counting in the usual German subletly, i think the other neutral nation of europe will be quickly tired of Germany bully them

No, in life, you don't always get to chose between good choices. Often you have to optimize for the least worst.

It's the opinion that a CP victory is the better choiche that i dislike, it will not necesseraly make things better or block the rise of communism or of an nazi like ideology; surely will not block a second round coming

[Zmflavius]

Originally Posted by Svetonius21

Also etnic composition of Posen (62 to 38) was almost identical. So ethnic claims to Corridor are equally accurate to ethnic claims to Posen.

This is doubtful. The numbers require that you assume that Germanization in Westpreussen was more vigorous than Germanization in Posen, which is extremely doubtful.

[RousseauX]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

France was too weak to keep Germany down without another nations help. Germany is strong enough to keep France down. 45 million v 70 million.

Yes, and I hope you realize that France isn't the only country in Europe.

Of course France isn't going to fight Germany on its own.

Also, this is really poor logic, post-1918 OTL should have being "stable" then, after all, UK+France would mean 110 million vs 85 miliion.

You will get Germany as the dominant power in Europe with Russia the only possible equal rival. A lot depends on what happens to Russia. If B-L is used to shave off a big chunk or Russia's population and provide buffer states, there will be little to challenge German domination for the next few generations except blunders by the Germans. The Germans are now playing the Great Game where they only have to avoid unforced errors.

But 1914 victory will not result in B/L.

Hell 1918 victory almost didn't result in B/L

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

You will get Germany as the dominant power in Europe with Russia the only possible equal rival. A lot depends on what happens to Russia. If B-L is used to shave off a big chunk or Russia's population and provide buffer states, there will be little to challenge German domination for the next few generations except blunders by the Germans. The Germans are now playing the Great Game where they only have to avoid unforced errors.

There's also what happens to Russia internally. If she goes (perhaps under an unpopular White government) a bit like interwar China, then you get a very weak central government and lots of areas under the control of local warlords. So Germany caould have a power vacuum in the east for quite a while.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by RousseauX

Yes, and I hope you realize that France isn't the only country in Europe.

Of course France isn't going to fight Germany on its own.

Also, this is really poor logic, post-1918 OTL should have being "stable" then, after all, UK+France would mean 110 million vs 85 miliion.
But 1914 victory will not result in B/L.

Hell 1918 victory almost didn't result in B/L

Well, the ToV from OTL would have been stable, if France and the UK were willing to keep Germany down, but to a large extent, the UK disbanded its army after WW1. From memory, the UK had half as many full divisions in the British Isles in 1933 compared to 1913. If there was a will, clearly France and the UK would be able to keep the Nazi's from rising to devastate Europe. But France and the UK showed one of the weaknesses of a coalition, that one side is a free loader. France at about 50 million was too weak to keep Germany down at about 80 million.

Without France being able to rearm and with Austria-Hungary as it ally, the Central Powers have roughly the same population base as Russia to build an army from. Add in Bulgaria and the Ottomans, and we have a situation where it will never make rational military sense for Russia to directly fight the coalition.

Nothing is certain in an ATL, but this is the most likely path.

In any quick CP win, Russia loses Poland and likely Baltics and possibly Finland. You right about the Ukraine probably remaining Russian. But German at a minimum will have its buffers states, and A-H covers half its border with buffer states.

Originally Posted by Mikestone8

There's also what happens to Russia internally. If she goes (perhaps under an unpopular White government) a bit like interwar China, then you get a very weak central government and lots of areas under the control of local warlords. So Germany caould have a power vacuum in the east for quite a while.

It is true that there are a lot of different scenarios for Russia in a loss. We can say Lenin does not take power, but the range of possible governments involving the Tsar is huge as is the range of possible White governments. And civil war is possible as is Russia breaking up into effective multiple warlord states. I lean towards the Tsar at least losing most of his power and Russia revitalized after 5-10 years of stress. Nicky was so bad, the next guy(guys) nearly has to be better. And we likely get the worst Pogrom in the last 100 years.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

It is unlikely that Germany falls into fascism in a win scenario.

Two thoughts. First, it did OTL, when the German military wa shappy to have a hardon for Hitler and then joyously support him. There's enough continuity between the WW1 and 1930s officer corps to make me skeptical that this would be the case.

The Kaiser, BTW, was pretty much powerless by 1917/1918; anytime he opposed what the Silent Dictatorship did, they threatened to resign.

The Polish Corridor relocation plan is likely to die before implementation due to internal Germany political issue and the lack of any replacement settlers.

Why would it die due to internal political opposition when the military controlled the nation?

The German generals in WW1 behaved much better than Japan in WW2.

Forced drafts of Belgian labor to work in German factories, plans to resettle and ethnically cleanse parts of Poland, the Baltic, and the Crimea, attempts to confiscate Ukrainian grain...

Obviously, the differences are night and day.

Originally Posted by Zmflavius

None of this nonsense about how Germany would do it if they had the chance too, and that they were unique in this regard either, situational realities dictated the softening of the Versailles treaty as well.

Except as OTL's German foreign policy shows, they were led by idiots. Every time the liberals and Socialists tried to push for a compromise peace, the High Command essentially went LOL NOPE.

Which is part of why victory is night imposisble for these guys, but that's neither here nor there.

I wouldn't call Japanese generals insane more than callous;before.

Declaring war on the US? Of course, the Germans in WW1 also discounted the US, and the frantic warnings from German businessman who spent time in America and knew what was coming.

[Clandango]

Were the Catholics or non-Prussian kingdoms manage to get themselves heard? I know the Austrians had little chance when they troed to give up East Galicia for peace.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

Two thoughts. First, it did OTL, when the German military wa shappy to have a hardon for Hitler and then joyously support him. There's enough continuity between the WW1 and 1930s officer corps to make me skeptical that this would be the case.

The Kaiser, BTW, was pretty much powerless by 1917/1918; anytime he opposed what the Silent Dictatorship did, they threatened to resign.



Why would it die due to internal political opposition when the military controlled the nation?



Forced drafts of Belgian labor to work in German factories, plans to resettle and ethnically cleanse parts of Poland, the Baltic, and the Crimea, attempts to confiscate Ukrainian grain...

Obviously, the differences are night and day.



Except as OTL's German foreign policy shows, they were led by idiots. Every time the liberals and Socialists tried to push for a compromise peace, the High Command essentially went LOL NOPE.

Which is part of why victory is night imposisble for these guys, but that's neither here nor there.



Declaring war on the US? Of course, the Germans in WW1 also discounted the US, and the frantic warnings from German businessman who spent time in America and knew what was coming.

In a German win, Hitler will be totally unknown. The existing power structure survives. And after the win, the Kaiser can simply accept their resignation. Hindenburg had already retired once. The Kaiser gives him the award for best FM of the war in the same ceremony where the new commander is appointed.

Germany will revert to a non military government. Mass conscription had turned the army lead by Prussia into a people army. It is not the reliable instrument of the prewar days, and even the prewar army would not do what you seem to think would happen.

Falkenhayn wanted a peace deal. The Entente refused to negotiate unless the CP agreed to preconditions which would make it a Entente imposed win deal. It takes two to make peace and both sides share the blame here. It is not as if the Entente would have accepted the terms the SPD favored.

[lukedalton]

In a German win, Hitler will be totally unknown. The existing power structure survives. And after the win, the Kaiser can simply accept their resignation. Hindenburg had already retired once. The Kaiser gives him the award for best FM of the war in the same ceremony where the new commander is appointed.

It's the same line of though that the king of Italy have regarding Mussolini, discarding after he has done the job, it will work well as for him i fear. It's more probable that after the war the Kaiser remain as figurehead, not Willy he will be booted out (in a very gentle manner), but the real power will remain with the general, you know just for the emergency, til the communist and the rebels are deal with it.

[RousseauX]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Well, the ToV from OTL would have been stable, if France and the UK were willing to keep Germany down, but to a large extent, the UK disbanded its army after WW1. From memory, the UK had half as many full divisions in the British Isles in 1933 compared to 1913. If there was a will, clearly France and the UK would be able to keep the Nazi's from rising to devastate Europe. But France and the UK showed one of the weaknesses of a coalition, that one side is a free loader. France at about 50 million was too weak to keep Germany down at about 80 million.

Yes, if your point is that "they didn't have political will", the exact same thing can happen in Germany. Not only that, you are discussing a 1914 victory, under which a ToV style piece is unlikely, good luck getting France to agree to the sort of military restrictions. So it's not like Germany is going to get the same opportunity to stop France that France got to stop Germany in 1936 in the Rhineland.

Without France being able to rearm and with Austria-Hungary as it ally, the Central Powers have roughly the same population base as Russia to build an army from. Add in Bulgaria and the Ottomans,

We are not talking about balance of power, we are talking about whether said system would be stable, it doesn't have to come to full-scale war for German hegemony to not be stable.

and we have a situation where it will never make rational military sense for Russia to directly fight the coalition.

That's making a whole bunch of assumptions, i.e France isn't going to make common cause with the Russians, or anyone else making common cause with the Russians and yeah France will just never rearm because magic.

Nothing is certain in an ATL, but this is the most likely path.

*Assuming assumptions x,y,z

In any quick CP win, Russia loses Poland and likely Baltics and possibly Finland. You right about the Ukraine probably remaining Russian. But German at a minimum will have its buffers states, and A-H covers half its border with buffer states.

In -1918- the most likely scenerio is for Russia to lose Poland and Lithuania, in 1914 most likely they lose a slice of Poland.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Germany will revert to a non military government. Mass conscription had turned the army lead by Prussia into a people army. It is not the reliable instrument of the prewar days, and even the prewar army would not do what you seem to think would happen.

But this is not the prewar army. I don't get why you think this is a valid comparison; the army had already invoked the state of siege law to essentially put Germany under martial law, if sporadically enforced.

Combined with the propaganda officers attached to every division from 1917 onward, the plans for German settlements across Eastern Europe etc., I don't think I am out of place saying that a postwar Germany was not gonna be a nice place.

It takes two to make peace and both sides share the blame here. It is not as if the Entente would have accepted the terms the SPD favored.

We don't know this, because they were never offered. Instead we had Hindenburg arguing that Germany's "minimum" demands were control of Poland, Coulrnad, and LIthunia, control of the Flemish coast, dominance of Holland, annexation of Maas and Liege, some form of economic hegemony in Denmark, and an empire in Africa.