Challenge: Reverse Versailles

General Zod

Banned
The WWI is just over, the alliance between Grossdeutchsland, Italy, Hungary and XXX stands victorious, and the XXX-French-Russian Entente lies utterly defeated.

You job as ATL CP diplomat, should you decide to accept it, is to concoct a peace that will be at least as suitably harsh on the French, Russians, and their allies as the current Brest-Litovsk provisional settlement in the East lies, and as alternate history writers will write about the fictional treaties of Versailles, St. Germain, and Trianon, in the improbable case that Germany and Austria-Hungary had lost the Great War, had not the beloved Reichsvater Bismarck succeeded to partition the rotten Hapsburg empire with the Italian and Hungarian allies to the satisfaction of all in 1866-1870.

To make your job a bit more useful, this scenario will be conflated with other fictional ones, so you are also kindly required to provide suitable terms to cover the possibilities of both Britain and the Ottoman Empire being an ally of the Central Powers, neutral, or allied to the treacherous Entente, instead of what really happened.

Likewise, you should suitably provide terms to cover both the eventuality of USA staying neutral or being an ally of the Central Powers, as the possibility of the German government picking a fight with a country that covers the whole North American continent, as it was foreordained to do since they wrestled control of Canada from the British in their war of independence, is just too ludicrous to contemplate.

You are also free to include in your scenarioes whichever other medium countries you deem very likely to have joined these two enemy blocks before or during the Great War.

Projections on the likely effects of the treaties in the following decades will be quite welcome. Nonetheless, we cannot afford to be any lenient to the French, Russians, and their allies.

As the Imperial Chancellor Bethmann-Hollwegg put it "These treacherous French have assaulted the Reich for the third time in a century, and only God can count how many times since the time of the Romans. The Cossack hordes again tried to sweep Europe and shackle it to barbarous tyranny as they did after Napoleon. Even now, chaos and revolution sweep their lands. We must build a peace that will pull the aggressors' teeth for our sons and nephews".
 
Last edited:

Anaxagoras

Banned
Italy surely gets Tunisia, Corsica, and protectorates over Algeria. Germany gets the French Congo, Madagascar and a protectorate over Morocco. What the hell- throw in French Indochina, too!
 
Italy surely gets Tunisia, Corsica, and protectorates over Algeria. Germany gets the French Congo, Madagascar and a protectorate over Morocco. What the hell- throw in French Indochina, too!
Italy's chances of getting Haute Savoie, Savoie and Nice are higher then their chances of gaining Corsica, in my opinion-and I'd say Italy's chances of getting Corsica are quite high.
 

General Zod

Banned
Ok, what if Italy had already fought on the side of Germany in the 1870 war (as they very likely to do, after Bismarck was nice enough to give them all those nice eastern claims of theirs, and they won the 1866 war together) ? What would Italy grab in 1871 and what in Reverse Versailles ?

And Germany ? Shouldn't they make several additional land-grabs on metropolitan France and Belgium, besides Alsace-Lorraine and Luxemburg ? I'd expect them to. e.g. Belfort, Briey, the Western slopes of the Vosges, the rest of Lorraine, the parts of the provinces of Liege, Limburg, and Namur east of the Meuse river, bringing the border with France and Belgium to the Meuse and/or Moselle rivers ?

And Belgian and French Flanders ? Cession to the Netherlands ? Separation in a client Flemish state ?

I can quite understand Germany getting French Congo, Gabon, and Belgian Congo, they are among the richest areas of Africa, but why Madagascar ? There are richer African french colonies than that.

And what about reparations, limitations on the French armed forces, etc ?

Russia. Does the Brest-Litovsk settlement stands ?
 
Last edited:
Did this spin out of the other thread?

If we're going for a really "full reverse" Versailles, here's what I would propose:
=> France has to pay a yet undecided sum of gold francs as reparations.
=> French Lorraine to be detached from France for 15 years, afterwards it has to decide its fate by plebiscite.
=> The Seine, the Rhône are internationalised, France is not allowed to patrol them.
=> The French army is limited to 80,000 men. No tanks, airforce, heavy weaponry are allowed.
=> All French patents are given to Germany.
=> All French colonies are lost (split between Germany, AH, and the Ottoman Empire), except for Algeria and Tunisia, which are to be independant.
=> All French companies and daughter companies in Germany are nationalised by the state.
=> Corsica given to Italy.
=> Creation of the Free City of Nice.
=> Creation of a Breton Free State.
=> Clemenceau, Foch, et al. are to be tried as war criminals.
 
Italy acquires Nice and Corsica from France again. Italy acquires Tunisia from France.

Again ? Sure, Haute Savoie and Nice were ceded by Italy to Napoleon III but you can't say 'again' about Corsica

I'd say yes, they'd gain Tunisia but not (as others suggested) Algiers - remember the place is half populated by Frenchmen !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

General Zod

Banned
Just to make sure, every nation has the colonies as OTL? So much for butterflies...

Very good question. Now, let's see, the main differences of the TL are that the Hapsburg Empire doesn't exist anymore and has been partitioned between Germany, Italy, and Hungary since 1866-1870, and that Canada (and maybe aprt or all of the British West Indies) has been in the USA since the American Revolutionary War.

As it concerns the second PoD, it can be safely assumed that the USA has absorbed all North America (and quite possibly large chunks of South America too, esp. the northern and western areas) by now, but that won't have any direct effect on Africa or Asia.

UK will be most eager to rebuild a second empire, but very likely Asia will be the main focus of this effort, in China and South East Asia. They will try to control Indonesia, Siam, and as much of China as they can in addition to India and Malesia.

Germany will be much more interested in African colonies than in Asian ones.

Now, it is quite likely that a stronger USA that owns Canada from its birth will win a decisive victory in the War of 1812 and gain additional British possessions. This may be limited to British West Indies alone, but it might also mean Australia and/or South Africa. The latter rather less likely than the former, since ownership of the Cape is rather more important for control of the trade routes to Asia, whileas Australia is peripheral to UK interests in the ealry 1800s. So let'assume a possible US Australia but not a US South Africa.

US Australia would somewhat intensify the rivalry between Britain and USA in East Asia and South East Asia, but it is irrelevant to the destinies of Africa.

As it concerns the first PoD, Bismarck as leader of Grossdeutchsland and with Italy and Hungary as loyal allies would feel somewhat more safe in Europe and more willing to enmesh Germany in the scramble for Africa earlier than OTL. He then would also be less willing to encroach on British colonial interests and more willing to do so on those of France, a country that is isolated in Europe and already quite hostile to Germany and Italy in the 1870s-1880s. He would also be more willing to support Italy's colonial ventures, which would be more successful with German support. His successors would most likely confirm this policy, which means Italy most likely succeeds in conquering Ethiopia. They may or may not succeed in claiming Tunisia instead of France. An accelerated scramble for Africa may mean that some great power(s) might claim the Congo basin instead of the King of Belgium.

Therefore, it may safely be reasoned that, differently from OTL:

The USA own the whole North American continent (and quite possibly, large swatchs of South America as well, esp. the northern-western areas of Spanish South America) and any British, French, or Russian possession in the Americas has been conquered or bought by them.

It is quite possible, but not garanteed, that the USA possess Australia.

The UK has colonized at least part of China, pretty much all Indonesia, and possibly Siam.

They likely own Tanganyka and they may have claimed part or all of the Congo Basin (OTL Belgian Congo).

Germany owns Namibia but does not own Tanganyka. They own Kamerrun, Togoland, Guinea, Gabon, and Middle Congo. They may have claimed part or all of the Congo Basin.

Italy owns Libya, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea. They may or may not own Tunisia.
 
Now, it is quite likely that a stronger USA that owns Canada from its birth will win a decisive victory in the War of 1812 and gain additional British possessions.
It is also quite likely that an USA that includes Canada from its birth will not fight the war of 1812 in the first place. And, after all, the USA have reasons to look at France, embroiled in European conflicts as she is, and see a chance for expansion on the American mainland...
 
Sorry, how exactly is the US taking Australia from the British in the early 1800s? A few extra million arces of land to the north does not a global reach make, at least not right away...
 

General Zod

Banned
Did this spin out of the other thread?

If we're going for a really "full reverse" Versailles, here's what I would propose:
=> France has to pay a yet undecided sum of gold francs as reparations.

Very appropriate.

=> French Lorraine to be detached from France for 15 years, afterwards it has to decide its fate by plebiscite.

Really, rather too mild IMO. OTL had Germans lose Alsace-Lorraine, Western Prussia, Posen, and Upper Silesia with no buts or ifs. As a comparison, at the very least France should lose French Flanders and French Lorraine, at the very least to the Moselle, possibly even to the Meuse, without any automatic option for return. This comparison takes into account the loss of Nice, Savoy, and Corsica. Anyway, some of the latter stuff (mostl likely Nice and Savoy) was lost to Italy in 1870.

=> The Seine, the Rhône are internationalised, France is not allowed to patrol them.

Quite possible, but would the Central Powers reap a significant economic or strategic benefit to bother ?

=> The French army is limited to 80,000 men. No tanks, airforce, heavy weaponry are allowed.

This is feasible, but would it be enough to garrison their residual colonies ? Assuming they have any left, of course. Would Germany and Italy bother to strip them of all their colonies, including the less valuable ones (e.g. the Sahel ones) ?

=> All French patents are given to Germany.

Is there any really valuable stuff for the Germans in there ? Typically they were ahead of the French in technological development. The Italians and Magyars, OTOH, might definitely like the package.

=> All French colonies are lost (split between Germany, AH, and the Ottoman Empire), except for Algeria and Tunisia, which are to be independant.

Plese check the description of TTL. Austria-Hungary hasn't existed here anymore for 40 years. :rolleyes: Here the core CPs are Greater Germany, Italy, and Hungary. Other powers (such as the OE or Sweden) are optional, but likely.

Italy won't let Tunisia be anything but its own colony. And assuming they bother to keep a few unruly pieds noirs properly subdued, they may be quite willing to have Algeria, too. Or it will stay French.

=> All French companies and daughter companies in Germany are nationalised by the state.

Fine. In Italy and Hungary, too.

=> Creation of the Free City of Nice.

Utterly unrealistic. It will be annexed to Italy, pure and simple.

=> Creation of a Breton Free State.

A way to weaken France further ? Do the Bretons go along willingly or are as unwilling as OTL Rheinelanders and Austrians ?

=> Clemenceau, Foch, et al. are to be tried as war criminals.

And they will promptly flee to the nearest reacheable neutral country as soon as the Armistice is signed. Spain, perhaps ? Occupation troops are likely to bar the way to Switzerland.
 
And they will promptly flee to the nearest reacheable neutral country as soon as the Armistice is signed. Spain, perhaps ? Occupation troops are likely to bar the way to Switzerland.
Probably, most will-just as happened with some of the 'war criminals' of OTL's Versailles treaty.
Anyway, some of the latter stuff (mostl likely Nice and Savoy) was lost to Italy in 1870.
Wasn't the Italy earlier Italy, with other circumstances of unification? If so, it is possible that they never lost those in the first place.
 

General Zod

Banned
It is also quite likely that an USA that includes Canada from its birth will not fight the war of 1812 in the first place.

Oh they will, even more eagerly than OTL. Over British trade blockades, British sailor impressments, and, above all, USA claims on the British West Indies, Guyana, and Belize. Sugar, anyone ?

And, after all, the USA have reasons to look at France, embroiled in European conflicts as she is, and see a chance for expansion on the American mainland...

1798-1799 OTL Quasi-War = TTL Franco-American War. Paris says goodbye to Haiti, French Caribbeans, and French Guyana. Louisiana Purchase proceeds as usual in 1803. The French are even more eager to sell what they are likely to be kicked out of in short order anyway.
 
Oh they will, even more eagerly than OTL. Over British trade blockades, British sailor impressments, and, above all, USA claims on the British West Indies, Guyana, and Belize. Sugar, anyone ?
While they're still melting the gains of the Franco-American War?
Sorry, but I think you're exeggerating the US will to go to war, and also their ability to do things. Besides, the Franco-American War would have damaged Franco-American relations, which, given the time-period, would have strengthened British-American relations. After all, the US was a co-belligerent for a while here, and Britain may very well have helped a bit (not having Canada to worry about)...
So, those 'trade blockades' you're speaking about? Not there, The sailor impressments? Less of them. USA claims on the British West Indies, Guyana, and Belize? Less important then the Mainland US. Also, if the French are so close to be kicked out of Louisiana in the first place, why didn't the Americans do just that in the war?
 
Last edited:

General Zod

Banned
Sorry, how exactly is the US taking Australia from the British in the early 1800s? A few extra million arces of land to the north does not a global reach make, at least not right away...

The young US Navy had global reach enough to wage the Barbary Wars in the same period. Australia was the by far worse defended possession of the British Empire in the early 1800s. Not much better than what was necessary to keep the penal colony in line.

Admittedly, it's not a fixed, unalterable element of the TL. It's quite subject to butterflies, such as the British not immediately willing to give up when they lose the West Indies, and the Congress and President being willing to deliver them another kick where they are least protected. It takes a leap of strategic insight, which the US may or may not have. It's not ASB, however, thanks to the Barbary Wars precedent.
 
The young US Navy had global reach enough to wage the Barbary Wars in the same period. Australia was the by far worse defended possession of the British Empire in the early 1800s. Not much better than what was necessary to keep the penal colony in line.
There's a problem you may not have realised. In the time-period we are speaking about, Australia is much farther away then what was needed for the Barbary Wars. Remember, no West Coast yet, so they'll either have to go around South America, or around Africa.
 

General Zod

Banned
While they're still melting the gains of the Franco-American War?

A dozen years later ?

Sorry, but I think you're exeggerating the US will to go to war, and also their ability to do things.

OTL: ARW, Quasi-War, Barbary War, War of 1812.

TTL: ARW, Franco-American War, Barbary War, War of 1812.

They are more successful in the ARW and liberate a (willing) Canada (PoD assumes Canada went with the 13 colonies in 1775, as well as the British West Indies, but they weren't able to free them all immediately in 1783. They needed to build up naval power to do so in 1812). This frees up and gives more resources to expand the Quasi-War into a full-fledged war. The success in that gives even more resources and determination to expand, and kick out the British, too, out of the American continent. Success builds on success, and gives an appetite for more.

Besides, the Franco-American War would have damaged Franco-American relations, which, given the time-period, would have strengthened British-American relations. After all, the US was a co-belligerent for a while here, and Britain may very well have helped a bit (not having Canada to worry about)...

A decade before. Relationships have plenty of time to sour again. Again, it is what happened in 1798 and 1812. Just here the USA are stronger, do not have to worry about an hostile canada, and are more expansionistic (due to a growing string of successful wars). Also, they have a strong irredentist claim on the British West Indies TTL, just as on Canada OTL. The BWI may be little, but are settled, deveoped, and rich (sugar plantations...).

So, those 'trade blockades' you're speaking about? Not there,

Oh, they are. the British are still not yet allowing them to trade with Continental Europe (so does not Napoleon, but he is more skillful and makes promises, while the British are uppity).

The sailor impressments? Less of them.

Yes, they are definitely less, thanks to a rather stronger US Navy, but still enough in the US Merchant vessels, to PO the young proud Republic.

USA claims on the British West Indies Guyana, and Belize? Less important then the Mainland US.

Sugar profits.

Also, if the French are so close to be kicked out of Louisiana in the first place, why didn't the Americans do just that in the war?

Because Louisiana is Spanish from 1762 to 1800.
 
And what of the UELs? There might be proportionally less of them, but since they couldn't go to Canada...
You know, this is sounding more and more like an Ameriwank:rolleyes:.
 
Top