Austria peace negotiations successful in Spring 1917

I haven't seen an alternative 1917 armistice for a little while, so how about this one?:



After negotiations between France and Austria, via Prince Sixtus of Bourbon Parma, peace has finally been agreed. France and Austria agreed that: France would get Alsace-Lorraine, Belgium would be restored with her colonies, Yugoslavia would be an autonomous Kingdom formed of Serbia, Montenegro and Albania within the Austrian Empire, with Poland as an autonomous Kingdom within the German Empire.

Emperor Charles told Kaiser Wihelm that Austria accepted these peace terms, and was persuaded to accept these terms. Armistice Day was agreed for April 1st 1917 and more terms were agreed. Finland became an independent Kingdom under Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse; United Baltic Duchy of Estonia and Latvia under the former Sixtus of Bourbon-Parma; Kingdom of Lithuania under Wilhelm Albert of Urach; Russia under constitutional monarchy with Nicholas II's brother, Michael, as Tsar, whilst the former Russian royals abstain from political involvement; Kingdom of Ukraine under Wilhelm von Habsburg; Romania enlarged by acquisition of Transylvania from Hungary; Austria-Hungary reformed as Central European Federation under Emperor Charles, divided into equal kingdoms like states in German Empire, which includes Yugoslavia; Wilhelm II abdicates in favour of his son, Wilhelm, whilst Archduke Charles Stephen of Austria becomes King of Poland, though subordinate to the German Emperor; Italy gains Trieste from Austria-Hungary.

Relatively soon after peace agreed, Turkey becomes a republic and Ottoman Empire carved up, whilst Portugal restores its monarchy.


What's the verdict? Thanks (don't maul me if I've made mistakes!)
 
Romania enlarged by acquisition of Transylvania from Hungary.

Austria-Hungary reformed as Central European Federation under Emperor Charles, divided into equal kingdoms like states in German Empire, which includes Yugoslavia

It'd be the United States of Greater Austria or the Greater Austrian Confederation or something.

Maybe:

Austria-Hungary implements Franz Ferdinand's reform plans.

Hungary promptly revolts. Austria-Hungary sells Transylvania to the Romanians, forcing the Hungarians into a much more difficult situation.

Hungarian elites crushed, Hungary subjected to a less drastic Treaty of Trianon. Hungary remains in the Empire, which is probably ok for the average person (great, if they could view OTL, given the massive economic depression the empire suffered IOTL because the empire was tightly integrated).

They also would likely ditch Serbia as part of the peace (and it'd probably be required).

Italy gains Trieste from Austria-Hungary.

Maybe: Dalmatia, Italian speaking western Istria and Trentino (but not South Tyrol or Trieste, or the rest of Istria) and a free hand if they want to invade Albania.

Trieste is Austria-Hungary's key port in the Med, they'll hang onto it. They might hang onto western Istria as well, but it's not like the Austro-Hungarians had illusions about the security of Trieste against the Italians with/without western Istria.
 
Sounds ok to me though...

They also would likely ditch Serbia as part of the peace (and it'd probably be required)..

Are you saying there should be a completely independent Yugoslavia, or accept it as part of the Greater Austrian Confederation?

a free hand if they want to invade Albania.

I'm not sure Serbia/Yugoslavia would be happy about that! I think it would either have to be part of the autonomous Yugoslavia, as a reward for being part of the Austrian Confederation, or would be accepted by Yugoslavia, provided that she was completely independent, which in turn would undermine the Austrian Confederation in this timeline, given that they would then have lost influence over both Yugoslavia and Poland. Considering that in this timeline, Austria and France were leading the negotiations, it would seem strange for Austria to have dealt itself a weaker hand...


Also, what do you believe would be the long-term consequences of this AT?
 
Interesting, although in the spring of 1917 the CP were not far enough into Russia to demand the Ukraine, so i doubt they would get that. Romania is also pretty much overrun so i am not sure why they get Transylvania.

I also suspect the Germans would scream treachery and try to turn on the AH rather than sign off on this deal.
 
I also suspect the Germans would scream treachery and try to turn on the AH rather than sign off on this deal.[/QUOTE]

Maybe. Maybe not. The German War Council meetings between the Crown ministers, Army officers (read: Hindenburg and Luddendorf), and civilian interests that were keeping the war effort going were a real gong show. That's why Germany never had clear war aims - they changed every year, depending on who could exercise the most influence.

However: Germany will never give up Alsace - Lorraine anymore than Austria - Hungary would give up Transylvania. I could see a compromise working: France will return Kamerun and Togo, MAYBE slicing off a little bit of central Africa. Germany agrees that the ethnic French parts of AL will go to France, and a joint commission is struck to determine borders. Probably about as much fun as setting borders in eastern and southern europe.

Again, about Romania: they had already capitulated to the CPs, so they have no right to demand or expect anything. Further, Romania was only able to claim that area on account of the fact that the Imperial and Royal Army had been broken and dissolved, and Hungary itself had gone red.
 
Are you saying there should be a completely independent Yugoslavia, or accept it as part of the Greater Austrian Confederation?

I'm saying there is no Yugoslavia. Why the heck would AH want more slavs? The only people who wanted Serbia were the hardline crazy military people. The official annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina was already a mistake.

So set up Serbia as a puppet under some minor nobility but keep it explicitly out of the new Austria.
 
Why put a Habsburg on the Polish throne instead of one of the Catholic Hohenzollerns?

Because that was ostensibly the plan during the war (well, at least until Austria - Hunary started to do rather poorly). Also, Archduke Karl Stefan was fluent in Polish and understood the culture very well; he was a favorite of the Poles in Galicia and when the subject of a new kingdom came up, they naturally looked to him.
 
Because that was ostensibly the plan during the war (well, at least until Austria - Hunary started to do rather poorly). Also, Archduke Karl Stefan was fluent in Polish and understood the culture very well; he was a favorite of the Poles in Galicia and when the subject of a new kingdom came up, they naturally looked to him.

But if that is your basis for the claim, then the idea that Poland would be annexed to the Reich as has been suggested in this thread thus far is bogus given that such was not an aim of the Central Powers historically.
 
Have to ask, why would the French accept A-L in exchange for the dismemberment of their Ally (Russia) and a complete Central Powers victory in Eastern Europe?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
The problem was Alsace- Lorraine. Germany wasn't yet in a desperate situation and thought they could get a peace where they hold on to Alsace- Lorraine. That's at least the most important factor. There are probably some minor disagreements between A-H and Germany about the other points in the proposals, but nothing they couldn't work out together. But giving France Alsace- Lorraine was a no-no for Germany in 1917.

If Austria agreed to this they'd be on their own, since Germany would still try to fight on. And being alone scared Austria. Another problem I see is giving all of Transylvania to Romania, sure it would weaken the Magyars, but at the same time Austria would have problems giving that much land to their weakest enemy (i.e. Romania).
 
Last edited:
Top