I would say the UK, France and USA could dictate whatever terms they saw fit. Looking at it from the British vantage point of 1918 the world is quickly moving to what they termed Bolshevism, Marxist revolution was brewing everywhere, and even the French where looked upon as "revolutionary" to the conservatives in Britain, after all they cut the head off a King and gave them Bonaparte. It would have been justice enough to force both the Kaiser and the Crown Prince to abdicate while letting then lawful succession set the grandson on the throne while a new more potent Diet is formed under the watchful eye of the victors, more easily nudged to something like familiar Parliament. And the British keep the orderly monarchy in place versus an uncertain revolutionary future. It gives the Army and conservatives a lot of room to sell peace at the price of an unpopular Wilhelm, reparations are just money, the reforming liberals and SDP gets more power without the Communists, a reduced navy doesn't concern the Generals much and a smaller Army with less offensive bite but enough to deter the USSR gives the UK far more than it got from Versailles. Germany easily could have gone Bolshevik and into the Soviet orbit, that could not have been beyond everyone at the wrangling over the Treaty, and to the British the Treaty should have been obviously an unraveling of the Europe they understood as a place to dabble in but never get too deeply entangled with.

In this case, it doesn't matter, as they were pretty thoroughly overtaken by events before there even was a Treaty of Versailles ready. And demanding a restoration of the monarchy as part of the terms would have been utterly despised by Wilson, who supported any form of self-determination that chose the form of government he thought was best. Honestly, it's hard to see the French going along with it either; they wouldn't want any provisions that could ruin the rest of the treaty, and they obviously didn't have a fervor for monarchy either (and given how powerless the monarchy had become by this point in British history, it can't be said that they cared about monarchs other than their own as much), so getting them to possibly be forced to help restore a monarchy after a ceasefire had been called would be very unpopular with the troops. Lastly, it's not a credible anti-Bolshevik measure. Yeah, the death of the French king led to Bonaparte...which is to say, that deep-seated dissatisfaction with the King led to Bonaparte. More immediately, they also saw a monarch get toppled and then a communist uprising; you'd have to be pretty dim to assume that restoring the Tsar between February and October 1917 would have made the difference. It wouldn't provide any additional stability, but merely discredit the Prussian aristocracy and the SPD government that would be forced to sign this. Who would fill that void of basic legitimacy? Someone sane like Zentrum, or the KPD? Maybe someone even worse?

More than that, you can force a lot of things onto a defeated enemy in a situation like this, but you can't ask that the guys you're negotiating with sign away their domestic political power. Even if they were actually your toadies, they still wouldn't have the power to do that. That requires additional force, which in this context would mean resuming hostilities after an armistice had been declared. Nobody in Britain or France would have supported that.

As for sitting out of the OTL war, you should remember that in a France-Russia vs. Germany-Austria war, they fully expected the former to win, and what's more, it was clear from French naval deployments that they expected British support. To do anything but declare war on Germany would have been seen as a betrayal, and if they had sat out and the Entente won anyways, then they'd be faced with a true disaster, as the French would dominate Europe and be in a position to punish the British for reneging on perceived commitments. They'd be undamaged, but also deprived of influence on the continent with anyone of consequence, and in no position to moderate Franco-Russian dismemberment of Germany. In hindsight, this overestimates Russian strength, yes, but everyone did at the time, from Berlin to Paris to London. They'd taken pains to avoid seeming too firmly committed to one side or the other, but the French effectively forced their hand, and the Germans gave them too good a pretext not to honor their "commitments".
 
From what I know of pre-war Poland the Poles and Ukrainians did not get on, the Polish had been a restive people inside the Czarist empire and wanted their freedom. I suspect the same impulse was felt in the other nationalities. Getting to be a minority in another country was not going to be easy and I understand that the Poles were not successful at building Poland without offending the other nationalities. Ukrainians as far as I understand were spread over the borders where the Ukraine should have been founded as one state. Lenin was in no position to stop it, I am at a loss as to why it was not pursued. It seems dandy with an old map got bored after creating Poland and seeing the Baltic republics on there. Russia was a menace to the UK at multiple points, and a threat to India, thus the goes at Afghanistan, and not welcome in China especially after the Japanese gave the Asians proof that Europeans were not invincible. I suspect the fear was to "Balkanize" Eastern Europe and Imperial Russia, but then that occurred anyway. The British seemed to have lost all their strategic vision. The USA was too naïve to even grasp the thing that was broken or the tangled weave of ancient threads it was praying could be combed straight. The French bullied the Germans as they got bullied in 1871 after picking a fight they lost, the British walked off that field of honor as a dying man, second to a duel they should have seen as a bloody fool's errand. The Treaty was born out of victor's justice and that sprit poisoned the well, you are hard pressed to alter the sentiments obviously at play at that time but the British began to unravel some of it only after it was too late. But I like to think how the modern world was set in motion by that Great War and its peace.
 
In this case, it doesn't matter, as they were pretty thoroughly overtaken by events before there even was a Treaty of Versailles ready. And demanding a restoration of the monarchy as part of the terms would have been utterly despised by Wilson, who supported any form of self-determination that chose the form of government he thought was best. Honestly, it's hard to see the French going along with it either; they wouldn't want any provisions that could ruin the rest of the treaty, and they obviously didn't have a fervor for monarchy either (and given how powerless the monarchy had become by this point in British history, it can't be said that they cared about monarchs other than their own as much), so getting them to possibly be forced to help restore a monarchy after a ceasefire had been called would be very unpopular with the troops. Lastly, it's not a credible anti-Bolshevik measure. Yeah, the death of the French king led to Bonaparte...which is to say, that deep-seated dissatisfaction with the King led to Bonaparte. More immediately, they also saw a monarch get toppled and then a communist uprising; you'd have to be pretty dim to assume that restoring the Tsar between February and October 1917 would have made the difference. It wouldn't provide any additional stability, but merely discredit the Prussian aristocracy and the SPD government that would be forced to sign this. Who would fill that void of basic legitimacy? Someone sane like Zentrum, or the KPD? Maybe someone even worse?

More than that, you can force a lot of things onto a defeated enemy in a situation like this, but you can't ask that the guys you're negotiating with sign away their domestic political power. Even if they were actually your toadies, they still wouldn't have the power to do that. That requires additional force, which in this context would mean resuming hostilities after an armistice had been declared. Nobody in Britain or France would have supported that.

As for sitting out of the OTL war, you should remember that in a France-Russia vs. Germany-Austria war, they fully expected the former to win, and what's more, it was clear from French naval deployments that they expected British support. To do anything but declare war on Germany would have been seen as a betrayal, and if they had sat out and the Entente won anyways, then they'd be faced with a true disaster, as the French would dominate Europe and be in a position to punish the British for reneging on perceived commitments. They'd be undamaged, but also deprived of influence on the continent with anyone of consequence, and in no position to moderate Franco-Russian dismemberment of Germany. In hindsight, this overestimates Russian strength, yes, but everyone did at the time, from Berlin to Paris to London. They'd taken pains to avoid seeming too firmly committed to one side or the other, but the French effectively forced their hand, and the Germans gave them too good a pretext not to honor their "commitments".

First, we did so with Germany and Japan post-WWII, and I am unaware of any great urge to respect Germany political autonomy given they demanded the Kaiser abdicate, that is dictating domestic policy to Germany. My understanding is that 1918 Britain is far more loyal and disposed to the Monarchy than today, especially the elites in power. To that era Britain the communist revolution and the French revolution were abhorrent anarchy. Obviously they did not seem to look beyond demanding a change of government with what fills the vacuum, we see the democratic Weimar republic the winner but was that really the thing seen looking forward in 1918 or 1919?

My reading is that no one supported the Kaiser maintain his throne, yet no one presumed it was revolution until it began. The Army wanted a government to answer to, the victors could easily have nudged for the most reasonable Germans to be at the table. Why did the British not pursue a German Reichstag to be like its Parliament? And I doubt Wilson would have bothered with that if he thought he was getting democracy and self-determination, and a UN with the USA as big kid at the grown up table, all things he didn't get. And yes, I think the USA should have sat it out, we were already winning the super power race, but WWII gave us the big Championship and the treaty as we know set the stage for the next round.

I agree the Romanovs were already gone and do not suggest in 1919 anyone was serious about restoration, yet the West did intervene all the same on the side of the Whites. But to let that happen to the Germans? The dominos should have looked headed right for Buckingham itself. I just do not see how imploding the entire German government was anything but a roll of dangerous dice in a shark infested dark room,. yet the victors gave it a whirl.

The Entente was the product of French diplomacy and a few British who as far as I understand took Britain into an alliance no one else in power welcomed. France had spent the years after Bonaparte in isolation, a distrusted rival to Britain. On the eve of the war it seemed inconceivable to more than a few that the Empire would go to war for Republican France's long lost honor. The violation of Belgian neutrality was casus belli, but to give a blank check to France was everything the British were against, and yes the Russians were presumed to defeat Germany, but then everyone had similar fear of Prussian prowess post-1871. The British could have weakened the assurances to France and sat it out, and in 1914 I suspect few believed France would win, if anything the British were even more secure on the island. My read of those assurances read less compelling of Britain and the war came as a surprise to the British as full ally. At least that is my reading of the second Entente machinations.
 
Poland while hosting the capitol of the Intermarium isn't dominant over the other member states and they have a common belief of Pan-Slavism and the fear of Communism as the Soviets really don't like any of them.

Even Poland wouldn't want the Intermarum to be a single entity. In this scenario Poland will withdraw its forces from most of the territories it has on this map and, depending on who is in charge in Warsaw, either set them up as separate states or directly cede them to Russia. Also, Pan-Slavism was associated with Russification so it won't be a good basis for such a grouping.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
My idea for the Danube Federation would start with that it will dissolve eventually. All states of the Federation have a great deal of autonomy and can basically leave at anytime they feel ready. This is to prevent some of the ethnic and political clashes of OTL post Austria Hungary. All the states have their own currency either creating their own like the Czech and Slovak states, Hungary and Szekler land share the same currency. Or adopt another nations currency like the German states adopting Germany's currency, Transylvania adopting Romanias, and Slovenia, Croatia and Vojvodina adopting Yugoslavia. Each state also has the right to join an existing nation.

Then what's the point of having it if everyone wants to leave?
 
Italy was a fair weather ally that should have expected little really beyond some adjustments to put Italians inside its borders who may or may not want to stay with Austria.
.

Sorry, but after years of the most grueling war know to men...there are no fair weather ally.

Italy in WW1 had 650.000 military death and 590.000 civilian deaths and i not even considering the wounded and mutilated or the enormous monetary debt due to the war expense...not only you renege totally on the previous treaty that had get her in the war but you give her more or less what A-H agreed to keep her neutral.
Basically the nation will be engulfed in a revolution in days and even if don't become a socialist repubblic, you can expect that any ambassadors from France and UK that even hint to a proposal of alliance in the future will be dismissed with a kick on his ass...litteraly; the same can be said for Belgium and France not receiving all Alsace-Lorraine.

And all that will be very important when the Danube Federation will unravel...as by 1918 thing were gone too far and the entire Hapsburg Empire was a thing of the past, without any serious legitimancy in the population. Sure the army continued to fight, it was still their countries, but once peace settled everyone wanted out. Once the break up start, Germany will absorb a lot of territory making her even stronger and Serbia, Romania and Italy will muster everything they have to get more territory possible as they will feel entitled by that.
France now will be isolated and when the UK will start to search other continental allies will only found closed door...except maybe Greece and Poland, but good luck with that.

The interrmarum being some counterbalance to Germany is out of question, it's basically A-H mk2 with even less legitimancy; maybe can become a gloryfied custom union/regional political forum but not much more as there are too much different interest and Greece will be a ethnic mess for long time.
 
Yeah, Italy is not out of the war. Either the government walks out of the negotiations, breaks the armistice, and marches to Vienna (after Vittorio Veneto it's not like there was anything to avoid it), or it signs that treaty, is immediately couped, the army breaks the armistice, and marches to Vienna. Italy entered the War in 1915 and fought it to the bitter end; calling it "fair weather ally" is just another show of the veneer of racism that more or less pervades whoever never read anything about Italy.
 
Yeah, Italy is not out of the war. Either the government walks out of the negotiations, breaks the armistice, and marches to Vienna (after Vittorio Veneto it's not like there was anything to avoid it), or it signs that treaty, is immediately couped, the army breaks the armistice, and marches to Vienna. Italy entered the War in 1915 and fought it to the bitter end; calling it "fair weather ally" is just another show of the veneer of racism that more or less pervades whoever never read anything about Italy.

Or more simple, always if things has gonna go as OTL, she refuse to retreat as it already occupy much of the territory promised (Albania included).
 
Sorry, but after years of the most grueling war know to men...there are no fair weather ally.

Italy in WW1 had 650.000 military death and 590.000 civilian deaths and i not even considering the wounded and mutilated or the enormous monetary debt due to the war expense...not only you renege totally on the previous treaty that had get her in the war but you give her more or less what A-H agreed to keep her neutral.
Basically the nation will be engulfed in a revolution in days and even if don't become a socialist repubblic, you can expect that any ambassadors from France and UK that even hint to a proposal of alliance in the future will be dismissed with a kick on his ass...litteraly; the same can be said for Belgium and France not receiving all Alsace-Lorraine.

And all that will be very important when the Danube Federation will unravel...as by 1918 thing were gone too far and the entire Hapsburg Empire was a thing of the past, without any serious legitimancy in the population. Sure the army continued to fight, it was still their countries, but once peace settled everyone wanted out. Once the break up start, Germany will absorb a lot of territory making her even stronger and Serbia, Romania and Italy will muster everything they have to get more territory possible as they will feel entitled by that.
France now will be isolated and when the UK will start to search other continental allies will only found closed door...except maybe Greece and Poland, but good luck with that.

The interrmarum being some counterbalance to Germany is out of question, it's basically A-H mk2 with even less legitimancy; maybe can become a gloryfied custom union/regional political forum but not much more as there are too much different interest and Greece will be a ethnic mess for long time.

Agreed, a fair weather ally would have bolted long before they took over a million deaths.
 
I must say that it is impressive in that it manages to piss off, of those party to the peace, everybody or render them ethnically unstable, with the exception of Denmark and maybe Germany (even Britain and the US will be unhappy, since both pushed for high reparations and military restrictions to the Germans that were harder than their French-equivalents). I don't think I've seen any Versailles proposals before which manage such a conclusive feat.
 
I must say that it is impressive in that it manages to piss off, of those party to the peace, everybody or render them ethnically unstable, with the exception of Denmark and maybe Germany (even Britain and the US will be unhappy, since both pushed for high reparations and military restrictions to the Germans that were harder than their French-equivalents). I don't think I've seen any Versailles proposals before which manage such a conclusive feat.

I think I have, but only in this one thread where we were asked to go out of our way to do so, and even then, it's hard to top this for badness.
 
Top