AHC: WWI ends status quo ante bellum

Still, Russia got far better issues then taking back Poland.

I don't see it taking back anything, even if Germany (Very Unlikely) gives up all their conquests.


I quite agree on the unlikelihood of Germany doing so.

But if the war ends with Russia losing an area bigger than Belgium, will the Entente regard that as "status quo ante bellum"?
 

Perkeo

Banned
Isn't status quo ante bellum the normal thing to do if you know you have reached a stalemate?

I really can't understand why noone seems to have taken this under serious consideration. There was no ideological dispute (those who say it was freedom against autocracy may kindly explain the affiliation of Russia...), nor any cultural, ethnic or religious differences, just the greed of the powermongers.
 

Perkeo

Banned
What about more of a compromise peace? The Entente keeps its colonial gains, Germany keeps its eastern gains, and a status quo ante bellum in the Balkans and Western Front.
That would be a German victory: Trade some entirely useless colonies for some colonies/puppet states/loyal allies (depending on how smart the Germans are) with extremely useful ressources and - most important - no possibility for France or Britain to cut the supply lines.
 
Isn't status quo ante bellum the normal thing to do if you know you have reached a stalemate?

The war was only a stalemate in the tactical sense on the western front until late 1917, everywhere else there was heaps of things hat could be done to gain victory and even in the west the strategic battle of material and human resources was significant.

I think a status quo ante bellum peace is virtually ASB, too much happened for it to occur and by 1918 the war had taken on a radical, ideological aspect where people demanded satisfaction.
 
Isn't status quo ante bellum the normal thing to do if you know you have reached a stalemate?

I really can't understand why noone seems to have taken this under serious consideration. There was no ideological dispute (those who say it was freedom against autocracy may kindly explain the affiliation of Russia...), nor any cultural, ethnic or religious differences, just the greed of the powermongers.

In my oppinion I'm quite doubtfull that the French would have viewed this as an acceptable outcome unless their alternative was to ask the Germans for a cease fire.

I'd argue that France would be worse off from a security perspective than they were before the war started.
 
Isn't status quo ante bellum the normal thing to do if you know you have reached a stalemate?

I really can't understand why noone seems to have taken this under serious consideration. There was no ideological dispute (those who say it was freedom against autocracy may kindly explain the affiliation of Russia...), nor any cultural, ethnic or religious differences, just the greed of the powermongers.


As James Cameron put it "If France had lost too much to make peace, Germany had won too much".

By the end of 1915 the Germans had made massive gains in east and west, which they could not just hand back. To do so w/o an enormous quid pro quo would appear an admission of defeat, and the domestic political consequences were unthinkable.

But the Entente was in the same bind. If it was unable to expel the Germans from the occupied lands, they had in effect lost the war. Taking some scraps of colonial territory and a corner or two of the OE would fool no one.

Both sides were "riding a tiger", and could not dismount.
 

Perkeo

Banned
As James Cameron put it "If France had lost too much to make peace, Germany had won too much".

By the end of 1915 the Germans had made massive gains in east and west, which they could not just hand back. To do so w/o an enormous quid pro quo would appear an admission of defeat, and the domestic political consequences were unthinkable.

But the Entente was in the same bind. If it was unable to expel the Germans from the occupied lands, they had in effect lost the war. Taking some scraps of colonial territory and a corner or two of the OE would fool no one.

Both sides were "riding a tiger", and could not dismount.

1) The Entente had the German colonies and some territories in A-H, Germany had almost all of Belgium and a large chunk of France. So status quo ante bellum is an exchange of occupied territory against occupied territory.
2) Either way, the political consequences - even for most winners - were unthinkable IOTL. So nothing is lost if the bloodshed is ended earlier.
3) All parties claimed that the war was about defense, and forcing a status quo ante bellum is a form of successful defense. It will appear that every party's war goals were more then mere defense. There is no other explanation for the ease with wich the status quo ante - or actually everything short of a Carthagenean peace - was rejected.
 
1) The Entente had the German colonies and some territories in A-H, Germany had almost all of Belgium and a large chunk of France. So status quo ante bellum is an exchange of occupied territory against occupied territory.
2) Either way, the political consequences - even for most winners - were unthinkable IOTL. So nothing is lost if the bloodshed is ended earlier.
3) All parties claimed that the war was about defense, and forcing a status quo ante bellum is a form of successful defense. It will appear that every party's war goals were more then mere defense. There is no other explanation for the ease with wich the status quo ante - or actually everything short of a Carthagenean peace - was rejected.
I'd argue that the combatants were also looking to ensure their post war security vis a vis their then current opponents and potentially other nations as well. As I mentioned in my prior post I'm doubtful that the French would have found a simple return to the pre war status quo to be acceptible.
 
1) The Entente had the German colonies and some territories in A-H, Germany had almost all of Belgium and a large chunk of France. So status quo ante bellum is an exchange of occupied territory against occupied territory.
2) Either way, the political consequences - even for most winners - were unthinkable IOTL. So nothing is lost if the bloodshed is ended earlier.
3) All parties claimed that the war was about defense, and forcing a status quo ante bellum is a form of successful defense. It will appear that every party's war goals were more then mere defense. There is no other explanation for the ease with wich the status quo ante - or actually everything short of a Carthagenean peace - was rejected.
3) what they claimed and what was true were often two entirely different things
 
1) The Entente had the German colonies and some territories in A-H, Germany had almost all of Belgium and a large chunk of France. So status quo ante bellum is an exchange of occupied territory against occupied territory.
2) Either way, the political consequences - even for most winners - were unthinkable IOTL. So nothing is lost if the bloodshed is ended earlier.
3) All parties claimed that the war was about defense, and forcing a status quo ante bellum is a form of successful defense. It will appear that every party's war goals were more then mere defense. There is no other explanation for the ease with wich the status quo ante - or actually everything short of a Carthagenean peace - was rejected.

A colony is not equivalent to Belgium in terms of strategic value, you can't cut off British trade from zanzibar.
 
I'd argue that the combatants were also looking to ensure their post war security vis a vis their then current opponents and potentially other nations as well. As I mentioned in my prior post I'm doubtful that the French would have found a simple return to the pre war status quo to be acceptible.

What about a scenario where for whatever reason the US doesn't enter the war, but the Allies are able to hold off the German post B-L onslaught long enough to enable troops to be transferred from the defeated OE and perhaps a few more from India to make it to the front restoring stalemate conditions. By then all remaining nations are in danger of implosion and socialist revolution or worse, so continued fighting isn't really feasible.
 
What about a scenario where for whatever reason the US doesn't enter the war, but the Allies are able to hold off the German post B-L onslaught long enough to enable troops to be transferred from the defeated OE and perhaps a few more from India to make it to the front restoring stalemate conditions. By then all remaining nations are in danger of implosion and socialist revolution or worse, so continued fighting isn't really feasible.
Pretty sure Britain, France and Germany all would collapse before they agreed to white peace.
 
What about a scenario where for whatever reason the US doesn't enter the war, but the Allies are able to hold off the German post B-L onslaught long enough to enable troops to be transferred from the defeated OE and perhaps a few more from India to make it to the front restoring stalemate conditions. By then all remaining nations are in danger of implosion and socialist revolution or worse, so continued fighting isn't really feasible.

Would there even be a "post B-L onslaught" in that situation?

With no AEF looming on the horizon, Germany has no need to gamble everything on that offensive. All they have to do is hold out until Entente soldiers despair of ever breaking through, at which point there are likely to be a another lot of "Nivelle mutinies" (this time maybe in the British army as well) and the Entente has to talk.

The peace wouldn't be all that white though - at best a very dirty grey, as the CP hold all the best bargaining chips.
 

Perkeo

Banned
By 1917 (if not earlier) both sides would[agreed to white peace]. They've asked their people for far too many sacrifices to come back with less than a clear-cut victory.
They didn't, so something must have prevented the decision makers from just doing it.

However you are right if you're saying that there would be no public outrage against just sending the men home with "only" the lession learned that raiding your neighbors is a bad idea - even if you think you have the better excuse.
 
They didn't, so something must have prevented the decision makers from just doing it.

However you are right if you're saying that there would be no public outrage against just sending the men home with "only" the lession learned that raiding your neighbors is a bad idea - even if you think you have the better excuse.


You misunderstand me. I meant (in response to an earlier message) that both sides would "collapse before they agreed to [a white peace]". The governments involved dared not come back without a victory.
 
Top