AHC: Draw the Ideal Map of Post-WWI Europe

This is almost certainly crazy . . . But I sure would have loved a WW1 that ended like this.

A not quite so divided Europe and no Soviet Union . . . Though I admit there were fits of pique.

Iberian Peninsula, your ass better stop being divided.

Switzerland, I am so sick of you and your neutrality. Not today, I say!

Scandinavia, you'll be (mostly) united.

Germany, you need to get big and strong. Be happy too. No more anger.

And the UK was able to keep hold of Ireland because I said so.

My post WWI.png
 
In Haifa, where there's a traditional large center of Arab society and where Jews and Arabs got along fairly well IOTL before the Arabs were mostly all-expelled. Of course this is an ideal, and wouldn't work with actual humans involved.

I'm also curious about the extent of your free city. Recall that the independent Jerusalem in the UN Partition Plan also included Bethlehem, for example.
 
Decided to revive this thread, as I discovered on Wikipedia an interesting map of Europe the way "it should be," drawn by Louis Benezet in 1918. There are certainly some implausible changes made there, but does his proposal have any merit?
 
I'm also curious about the extent of your free city. Recall that the independent Jerusalem in the UN Partition Plan also included Bethlehem, for example.

Note I did say this was an ideal and that it will never work in contingent circumstances done by actual people.
 

MSZ

Banned
Probably unintentional, given that he did give a state to such small groups as the Romansh and Basques. Mentally add a country for the Ukrainians and one for the Belarusians and then how does the map look?

Looks like German-wank. Switzeraland partitioned? United Lithuania and Latvia? Serbo-Croatia is okay, uniting it with Slovenia is not? This map is crap even for a rough draft.
 
Decided to revive this thread, as I discovered on Wikipedia an interesting map of Europe the way "it should be," drawn by Louis Benezet in 1918. There are certainly some implausible changes made there, but does his proposal have any merit?
BTW, is the country of the Lapps, as seen on that map, in any way sustainable?
 

MSZ

Banned
BTW, is the country of the Lapps, as seen on that map, in any way sustainable?

Ignoring how exactly it was suppose to form, it would propably be only half weird. The Lapps have been regonized as a national minority OTL, would have hold over swedish iron ore in the north and access to sea to freely export it.
 
The correct borders aren't as important as is the treatment of minorities who'd end up at any side of the border.

1. This. Right here.

The reality is - as we can all see from these 1914 ethnographic maps - that much of Central and Eastern Europe, to say nothing of the Balkans was a polyglot mess. It was Balkanized, in short. And that frustrated the Big Four at Versailles to no end. Where do you draw the borders?

The reality is that you can't easily draw borders, unless you want a couple hundred statelets. What you have to do instead is draw the most reasonable borders for viable states that you can, and insist very strongly on federal and even confederal structures to protect the rights of minority communities. And then you try to offset that with a stronger pan-European structure - let us say at least a Free Trade Union/Area for starters. Membership would require basic respect for minority rights, with only a majority vote needed to vote out a member who violates the terms. And even then, in a few instances there may well have to be some "people moving."

To take one example, I would probably give all of Turkish Thrace to Greece, and make Constantinople a Free City under League administration. There was going to be massive population transfers anyway (Greeks out of Asia Minor, Turks out of Thrace and Macedonia); this simply makes for a more viable set of borders. Greece would be told to take it or leave it, with no adventurism in Asia Minor to be tolerated. It also ensures that control of the straits is necessarily an international affair.

2. The other elephant in the room is Germany. There is a consensus that Versailles was the worst of all worlds, punishing Germany just enough to make her deeply resentful, but not enough to deprive her of the power, long-term, to exact revenge. Because a generous peace was simply not going to be in the cards, no matter how much Wilson wanted it, one obvious answer is to head in the other direction: make Germany incapable of being a threat to peace again. And the obvious answer here is to look at her past, and consider a return to her pre-unification state - restoring Germany as a collection of sovereign states (keeping, where possible, princes in place as figurehead constitutional monarchs to preserve as much legitimacy as possible), bound together only by the old German Confederation, with the old Zolverein customs union restored. This probably ought to include the Cisleithanian parts of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire (plus, presumably, Burgenland, though perhaps without South Tyrol or Slovenia). The Czechs would be told: You can keep the Sudetenland, but the price is that you rejoin the old Confederation/Zolverein, and you have devolve some power to the Sudetens in a federal structure. The Germans would be told: Any further political integration within the Confederation requires the approval of the Treaty signatories.

Perhaps Emperor Karl could be kept as a president figurehead as a way to enhance legitimacy; but it's hard to say how practical that would have been. I think he still retained enough respect that he might be a viable figure for that job, especially if his rule over Austria was effectively ended.

Wilson, of course, never really comprehended the need for legitimacy for these states. The monarchies could not be sustained any longer as autocracies; but as constitutional monarchs, they could have provided enough legitimacy to make it harder (harder, not impossible - see Italy) for fascistic groups coming to power. Such an arrangement as I have outlined requires a different Woodrow Wilson, I'm afraid. It also requires Allied Powers willing to undertake a full, if limited, occupation of all of Germany to oversee the transition to restoring the Confederation, and they would have to make that decision by Nov. 9, 1918. And that might be the way to better mollify the French: No, you can't have the Rhineland or the Ruhr, but we're going to break Germany up into small pieces that can't threaten you again, but which you can politically dominate again.

And maybe even set up...a Coal and Steel Community with those states. Just a thought.
 
BTW, is the country of the Lapps, as seen on that map, in any way sustainable?

Ignoring the point that Norway, Finland, Sweden and Russia would hardly allow it to be formed as an independent entity, the Sami people would still be a minority in the area depicted. For example in the Swedish part, there would be even more speakers of the Finnic meänkieli than of Sami-speakers (different dialects taken together).
 
Why would restoring the monarchs who had fled in disgrace from Germany improve the 'legitimacy' of the state, especially if this was accompanied by its unwanted dissolution into various parts?
 
And I'm still not understanding why giving Germany the Sundenland and Austria would prevent WWII. It sure didn't work in OTL... :rolleyes:
 
Why would restoring the monarchs who had fled in disgrace from Germany improve the 'legitimacy' of the state, especially if this was accompanied by its unwanted dissolution into various parts?

The problem is that in OTL, what was put in place in Germany was Weimar. And Weimar had no legitimacy that anyone really respected. There was respect for Hindenburg, the man, but not the state he led.

Many of the monarchs of the German states were unpopular by November 1918. But I think it is also true that some Germans thought that they might get a better deal at the peace table if they set up republics. If they set up a German Republic.

To take the case of Bavaria, arguably the state which retained the strongest pro-monarchist sentiment, the funeral of King Ludwig III drew over 100,000 spectators in 1921. Crown Prince Rupprecht retained significant popularity thanks to his wartime leadership.

I think it's possible that several , but perhaps only a minority, of German states would have retained monarchs as constitutional heads of government. The rest would probably become republics regardless of what Wilson said. I think the key, however, is for the Allied leaders to publicly recognize that they are open to constitutional monarchy in postwar Germany. And keeping a role for the popular Emperor Karl might be the best way to achieve that.
 
The problem is that in OTL, what was put in place in Germany was Weimar. And Weimar had no legitimacy that anyone really respected. There was respect for Hindenburg, the man, but not the state he led.

Then what was the republic doing until Hindenburg was elected, and what did the people who voted against him want?

Nobody was in favour of limited sovereignty and an economic mess, but plenty of people (socialists, for example) were in favour of a republic from the moment one appeared.

Many of the monarchs of the German states were unpopular by November 1918. But I think it is also true that some Germans thought that they might get a better deal at the peace table if they set up republics. If they set up a German Republic.

The reasons for a fact don't change the fact. The war had been bungled, people's expectations had been profoundly betrayed, and that was the heart of the matter. What do to with the resulting mess was a facet of the whole problem.

To take the case of Bavaria, arguably the state which retained the strongest pro-monarchist sentiment, the funeral of King Ludwig III drew over 100,000 spectators in 1921. Crown Prince Rupprecht retained significant popularity thanks to his wartime leadership.

It's easy to like a powerless reminder of better days. Far more bourgeois and military Russians were in favour of the tsar in 1919 than in 1916.

I think it's possible that several , but perhaps only a minority, of German states would have retained monarchs as constitutional heads of government. The rest would probably become republics regardless of what Wilson said. I think the key, however, is for the Allied leaders to publicly recognize that they are open to constitutional monarchy in postwar Germany. And keeping a role for the popular Emperor Karl might be the best way to achieve that.

But what is imposing a republic compared to imposing the division of the state?
 
Hello IBC,

But what is imposing a republic compared to imposing the division of the state?

That's a fair point.

I think the more important thing is the breaking up of Germany into its old states. They can set up whatever states they like, even monarchies, so long as they are responsible, peaceable, and representative.

Leave an intact Germany, however, and you stand a likelihood of a Round Two, given the political realities in Allied nations of 1918.
 
Well, no.

It's quite difficult 'not to piss the Germans off' and at the same time not allow them to dominate central and eastern Europe.
You missed the the "as much" part. Germany might've been able to deal with the Polish corridor, or loss of Alsace-Lorraine, but not both together. The War guilt clause and reparation also have to go. The result would be a Germany that while still pissed off, is hopefully not quite pissed off enough to consider Hitler.
 
Top