AHC: Draw the Ideal Map of Post-WWI Europe

Best possible borders for the European continent... haha.

idealeurope.png
 
Probably because at the time, the population of the Ukraine was well over 30 million, and (as this predates the Ukranian genocide) most of these people were ethnic Ukrainians. The population of Georgia stood at less then 3 million.
 
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.
Yes, yet all that requires careful balancing and is far from 'simple'.

In addition, note that there not being Hitler isn't enough. Non-Hitler Germany can still could and did in OTL aim to recover their lost territories.
 
Probably because at the time, the population of the Ukraine was well over 30 million, and (as this predates the Ukranian genocide) most of these people were ethnic Ukrainians. The population of Georgia stood at less then 3 million.

But who was clearly distinct from the Russians even in that age when most people in the empire had no modern nationality by virtue of geographical seperate, lack of mixing, and totally separate language?* And who actually managed to set up some sort of functioning, reasonably secure state that the Bolsheviks themselves acknowledged that they had to invade from outside?

There are more Pennsylvanians than Scots, so clearly Pennsylvania is more likely to separate, I suppose.

I don't know where the 'Ukrainian genocide' (och help ma boab) comes into it. Modern Ukraine is 77% Ukrainian, a wee bit less without the western sections; imperial Ukraine then was 81% Ukrainian in 1897 (that's without the western sections, but then, eastern Galicia was not more than 80% Ukrainian in those days so it makes no huge difference). As we've seen, to be a Ukrainian then and now were quite different things (to the favour of modern Ukrainiandom, by the way: in '97 Ukrainians were a minority in Ukraine's cities and their language was hence in relative decline, whereas today it's growing) but the idea that some gigantic ethnic shift has taken place is manifestly false.

*A British diplomat in the region on Ukrainian nationality in 1918:

"Were one to ask the average peasant in the Ukraine his nationality he would answer that he is Greek Orthodox; if pressed to say whether he is a Great Russian, a Pole, or a Ukrainian, he would probably reply that he is a peasant; and if one insisted on knowing what language he spoke, he would say that he talked 'the local tongue'. One might perhaps get him to call himself by a proper national name and say that he is 'russki', but this declaration would hardly yet prejudge the question of an Ukrainian relationship; he simply does not think of nationality in the terms familiar to the intelligentsia. Again, if one tried to find out to what state he desired to belong - whether he wants to be ruled by an All-Russian or a separate Ukrainian government - one would find that in his opinion all governments alike are a nuisance, and it would be best if the 'Christian peasant folk' were left to themselves."
 
Last edited:
People have I think a far to pessimistic view of Belarusian statehood, while it is true that the national democrats never really managed to create an independent state, they eventually managed to create an "army" which resisted the bolsheviks in Slutsk.
If the national democrats managed to better cooperate with Bulak-Balakhovich and Poland, they might be able to creat an independent polish-allied state.

The fact the peasants were indifferent to national matters is true, but they like all large uneducated masses are subject to manipulation.
 
People have I think a far to pessimistic view of Belarusian statehood, while it is true that the national democrats never really managed to create an independent state, they eventually managed to create an "army" which resisted the bolsheviks in Slutsk.

'Groups of persons who were shot at by the Bolsheviks and returned the favour' is a very long list. Where is this army to get its munitions and recruits to defeat the reds?

If the national democrats managed to better cooperate with Bulak-Balakhovich and Poland, they might be able to creat an independent polish-allied state.

Ah, Poland, then. Leaving aside the question of whether Poland can win the war (what difference does a lone Belarussian warband make if the Reds stalemated the Poles and Petlyura together whilst crushing the said warband?) and whether eastern Belarus is worth prolonging it: if it's not going to annex large tracts of it, Poland is certainly going to turn Belarus into a sort of enlarged Volhynia.

The fact the peasants were indifferent to national matters is true, but they like all large uneducated masses are subject to manipulation.

This is a rather patronising point of view. The peasants were the great elemental force of revolution in Russia and they succeeded in establishing, however briefly, their own societies and armed forces. If they signed up to join the Ukrainian nationalists it was because they had reasons to, which they did: the village elderships had long had good relations with the political Ukrainian movement, which was involved extensively in agrarian co-operation and other things which meant something quite concrete to the peasants - where Red meant Yid and city-dweller, and White meant landlord and officer. Ukrainian nationality as we would understood was alien to most Ukrainians, but Ukrainian nationalists (who were themselves the sons of peasants, or of classes like priests who might themselves be the sons of peasants) were popular for quite different reasons.

In Belarus this was not the case (because there was not enough of a political Belarussian movement to do it) and there was no large peasant army marching under the Belarussian flag.
 
Last edited:

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
versailles4-1.gif


There you go. I thought about France taking the western bank of the Rhineland to have the Rhine as a defensible border and to weaken Germany industrially. While it would make France and German more balanced forces and reduce the required reparations, the German population both sides of the border would kick up all kinds of stink until 'justice' was done.

Poland is taking on the role of weakening Germany industrially. She has the local population to justify the Northern and Western additions, except perhaps in Memel. I'm looking for a route to the sea that Germany cares less about. Very tempting to include everything east of the Oder into Poland (if you are going to kick, then kick hard). What held me back was the ethnic make-up of the area.

Eastern Slovakia is just a millstone around Czechoslovakia's neck. If Western Slovakia looks for independence, Hungary is either the saviour or a second villain. Germany has no internal ally in the east of Czechoslovakia.

Catholic Bavaria makes a great bone of contention between Germany and Austria and keeps Germany smaller. Forcing Anschluss would be hard with a stronger Austria/Bavaria.
 
Last edited:
If I'm being honest, I'd probably break Germany into its constituent states (more or less), break off a good part of the western part of Prussia into its own state, and then put several of the south German states into a loose confederation with Austria (slightly enlarged from OTL on the Czech front, but otherwise recognizable), with Otto as Emperor-designate under a regency.

In the North, you'd have another confederation, and Prussia would be off on its own. Unions between any of the three would be barred.

Hungary...I'd give them a limited part of Transylvania (Romania needs something, but they need not get it all).

Yugoslavia...not happening. Enlarge Serbia with part of Bosnia (and part of modern-day northern Serbia). Croatia should be separate, and Slovenia can be put either there or with Austria.

Poland...either put the corridor in via Memel or resurrect Poland-Lithuania with boundaries along the lines of the German puppet state.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
All of Slovakia can split off to Hungary if you prefer. It would reduce the Czech-Poland border and make Hungary look less lop sided.

slovakia_map.gif
 
Last edited:
versailles4-1.gif


There you go. I thought about France taking the western bank of the Rhineland to have the Rhine as a defensible border and to weaken Germany industrially. While it would make France and German more balanced forces and reduce the required reparations, the German population both sides of the border would kick up all kinds of stink until 'justice' was done.

Poland is taking on the role of weakening Germany industrially. She has the local population to justify the Northern and Western additions, except perhaps in Memel. I'm looking for a route to the sea that Germany cares less about. Very tempting to include everything east of the Oder into Poland (if you are going to kick, then kick hard). What held me back was the ethnic make-up of the area.

Eastern Slovakia is just a millstone around Czechoslovakia's neck. If Western Slovakia looks for independence, Hungary is either the saviour or a second villain. Germany has no internal ally in the east of Czechoslovakia.

Catholic Bavaria makes a great bone of contention between Germany and Austria and keeps Germany smaller. Forcing Anschluss would be hard with a stronger Austria/Bavaria.
To be honest, this is an interesting map, with the creation of Posen, West Prussia and Upper Silesia you seem to have created an ideal number of border states to keep the Germans from attacking Poland. However, the states of West Prussia, Posen and Upper Silesia would be dominated by ethnic politics in favor of joining either Poland or Germany. Also you've given the Germans a huge bone of contention by giving the Polish the Memel Territory, which Poland has no claim to, you give the Germans an ally in Lithuania, which will be even more oppose to the Polish then in OTL. Not to mention that Bavaria is not going to last. None of the people want independence, the Freikorps are going to raise hell and the majority of its politics will be people voting to rejoin Germany.
 
Also you've given the Germans a huge bone of contention by giving the Polish the Memel Territory, which Poland has no claim to, you give the Germans an ally in Lithuania, which will be even more oppose to the Polish then in OTL.
Lithuanian ports being regarded as an adequate substitute for the Corridor is pretty much my pet peeve on AH.com.
However, the states of West Prussia, Posen and Upper Silesia would be dominated by ethnic politics in favor of joining either Poland or Germany.
Huh? I assumed the those are actually parts of states and not independent states.
 
I'm going to join those who say that most of the solutions proposed so far are even worse than OTL. If I had the time, I would write a distopic TL for every one of them:p

As for my ideal solution, I would organize plebiscites in as many disputed areas as possible. Also, historical provinces claimed by multiple nations (ex.: Schleswig, Bohemia, Transylvania, Banat, etc...) would also have the option to stay united and independent.
 
Lithuanian ports being regarded as an adequate substitute for the Corridor is pretty much my pet peeve on AH.com.
It doesn't even make any sense. The Memel Territory was populated by ethnic Germans and was historically a Lithuanian claim. Its not even close to a Wilno-Vilnius situation.

Huh? I assumed the those are actually parts of states and not independent states.
Could be, but the fact that they were highlighted made it seem as if they were specifically buffer states.
 
In the North, you'd have another confederation, and Prussia would be off on its own. Unions between any of the three would be barred.

The same way Austria was "barred" from anschluss with Germany, and Germany itself was "barred" from rearming and from militarising the Rhineland?

Fat lot of difference any of those made when the chips were down.
 
Top