Challenge: Reverse Versailles

General Zod

Banned
This thread is blatantly and obviously Habsburgophobic, and I call upon all good Habsburgophiles in the area to boycott it and grumpily complain about the God damn Prussians/Italians/Hungarians, loudly. :p

Habsburgs did not got a bad deal ITTL. One's scion of theirs still reigns over the Kingdom of Hungary, a member of the coalition that shall dominate Europe, another over the Kingdom of Austria-Bohemia, the biggest and most important member state beside Prussia itself of the Empire of Germany, the dominant Great Power of Europe and budding superpower.

So it can be argued they have not lost really anything, besides what was not really theirs to begin with (Italian lands) and an Imperial primacy over Germany they have squandered their rights upon, having failed miserably to properly unify the Fatherland and give it its rigthful place in Europe in 600 years. Yeah, now they have to pay homage to the Hohenzollern. Such is the (relative) price of failure. :p

When in other TLs they would have been wiped out by defeat and revolution, they now stand at the right-hand of the overlords of Europe and budding superpower. So who got it worse ? In a couple generations, contemplating their place in Germany, Europe, and the world, the Habsburg scions shall call what happened to their family ITTL, a blessing. Instead of primacy in a rotting construction soon destined to oblivion, they get to be the second most influential family of a superpower. So do not tempt fate by complaining. ITTL the Habsburg were forcibly stopped from being a stubborn obstacle to what was meant to happen for the good of Europe (unity of Grossdeutchsland and Italy) and they were themselves incapable of accomplishing ;)
 
Last edited:
Erm, that didn't help your case. The Habsburgs should rightfully rule all of Europe, end of story, not to mention the Prussians should been sent off to a gulag in Siberia, or better yet, Quebec.

*wanders off to go find the other Habsburgophiles and then to find some tar and feathers, and torchs, and pitchforks*
 

General Zod

Banned
Erm, that didn't help your case. The Habsburgs should rightfully rule all of Europe,

When they can provide a decent PoD to build a unitary Greater German Empire, or unite the HRE for good, and lead it to unite Europe in turn, they will. Got any ? Hodgepodge multi-ethnic dynastic states and patchworks of feudal possessions need not apply :p
 
Oh plenty; Charles V divides his Empire differently, Baltazar surives to inheirate the Spanish Throne, a total Allied victory during the War of Spanish Succession, a different Congress of Vienna, the Frankfurt Assembly offers Franz Joseph I their Crown, ect.
 

General Zod

Banned
Since the discussion on this issue seems to have mostly stalled, I suppose I might as well attempt to wrap it up:

"We the representants of the German Empire, the British Empire, the Kingdom of Italy, and the Kingdom of Hungary, hereby defined as the Allied Powers, with the Kingdom of Netherlands concurring, in order to restore peace with the Republic of France and the Kingdom of Belgium, do propose the following treaty:

France shall cede Alsace and Lorraine, including the District of Belfort, up to the Meuse river, to Germany.

France shall cede Nice, Corsica, and Savoy to Italy.

France shall cede the arrondissement of Dunkirk to Netherlands and the rest of the departments of Nord and Pas-de-Calais to Belgium.

Belgium shall cede Flanders (including the provinces of Antwerp, Limburg, Flemish Brabant, West Flanders, and East Flanders) to Netherlands, and the parts of the provinces of Liege, of Luxembourg, and of Namur, which lie east of the Meuse River, to Germany.

France is hereby forbidden to enter in political or economic union, or military alliance, with Belgium without the assent of the Allied Powers.

French territory on the borders with Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Italy shall be kept demilitarized for a depth of 100 km.

Franch armed forces will number no more than 100,000 troops, and conscription will be abolished.

Enlisted men will be retained for at least 12 years; officers to be retained for at least 25 years.

French naval forces will be limited to 15,000 men, 6 battleships (no more than 10,000 tons displacement each), 6 cruisers (no more than 6,000 tons displacement each), 12 destroyers (no more than 800 tons displacement each) and 12 torpedo boats (no more than 200 tons displacement each).

The manufacture, import, and export of weapons and poison gas in France is prohibited.

The manufacture, ownership, import, and export of tanks, submarines, military aircraft, and artillery is prohibited to France.

France shall cede the colonies of Morocco, Middle Congo, Gabon, Guinea, and Cote d' Ivoire to Germany.

France shall cede the colonies of Algeria, Tunis, and Djibouti to Italy.

France shall cede the remainder of her colonies to the British Empire.

Belgium shall cede the colony of Congo to Germany.

Navigation on the Seine and Rhone rivers shall be internationalized. The internationalization of navigation on the Rhein is hereby revoked.

The Allied Governments affirm and France accepts the responsibility of France, Russia, and their allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of France, Russia, and their allies.

France shall pay the Allied Powers 100 billion francs in reparations for war damages.

France shall cede any rights on her patents and copyrights to the Allied Powers."
 
Last edited:
So... the arrondisement of Dunkirk, and not only the city, I presume?
And why would Belgium gain French Flanders, but lose the rest of Flanders?
Hm... wait a second here... wasn't Limburg in the Netherlands?

For reasons of looking nice, I'd replace 'France shall cede the rest of its colonies to the British Empire.' with 'France shall cede the remainder of her colonies to the British Empire.'

Also, I believe they would pay in French Francs.

No taking of all the patents?

And why is Germany *called* the Greater German Empire? If it includes Austria, then that's still the German Empire! The distinction of 'greater' would not have developed for just Cisleithenia- too many people still remember the Confederation at the time the Empire was formed!
 
What do you think of this: Germany gets Luxemburg, Belgian territoty east of the Meuse, Belgian Flanders and Dunkirk are ceded to the Netherlands (which are offered an association status with the German Empire), West Wallonia and French Flanders are set up as the German-administered Belgian Protectorate. The French border with Germany is advanced to Belfort and the rest of French Lorraine. I'm just a bit uncertain whether to put it on the Moselle or the Meuse. Maybe the latter, since it's the new border with Belgium. Also would ensure that Verdun is in German hands.

The German Empire would be most eager to have as close an association with the Netherlands as possible, and the latter ought also be open to discuss some, since they have just been handed a nice big Flemish gift, but what they would find acceptablw without excessive cohercion ? Milirary alliance and customs union ? Commonwealth status where they have full autonomy in internal matters, but Germany has control of foreign, monetary, and milirary matters ? Union with the federal German Empire as one of its member states ?

I think this is going a bit too far. The Netherlands will not give up independence to Germany. It is very much possible though that close ties with Germany can be established. During OTL WWI they almost did join the Germans. The Dutch queen (Wilhelmina) was one of the most important reasons the Netherlands didn't. So with a couple of butterflies (easilu done with your early POD) that could change and the Netherlands are German allies from the start of the war. The Netherlands being rewarded with Flanders seems very reasonable and probably is the most important reason for them to join Germany. The thing to remember is that Limburg east of the Meusse is Dutch, not Belgium, so I doubt the Germans will get it.

The situation after the war will probably this. The Netherlands gains the Flemish parts of Belgium and France (with the possible exception of Brussels, I am not sure if it still has a Flemish speaking majority in those days). Closer ties to Germany are very probable, like a permanent alliance and a custom union, but the Netherlands will remain a sovereign nation. You could perhaps try to form a personal union between the Netherlands and Germany, marying the Dutch queen to the German crownprince (although the Netherlands is a democracy in those days, so the German king wouldn't have as much influence in Dutch politics as he would have in German politics).
 

General Zod

Banned
Several good suggestions, thanks. :)

So... the arrondisement of Dunkirk, and not only the city, I presume?

Yes. By checking on some Wiki maps, it seems the area of Dunkirk is the only one in French Flanders where the linguistic majority of a Dutch-Flemish dialect exists, so I used that as the criteria to establish what would go directly to Netherlands and what to the Belgium rump.

And why would Belgium gain French Flanders, but lose the rest of Flanders?

I assume that after the experience of WWI (I'm assuming here that ATL Belgium sides with France at the onset of the war and resists German-British passage), Britain and Germany are deeply skeptical on the value of neutral Belgium as a bulwark against France, and wish to strengthen allied Netherlands. Yet, they are also mindful of the experience of 1830 and skeptical about recreating the United Kingdom of Belgium-Netherlands.

Solution: they partition it; all Flemish areas go with Netherlands, Germany annexes everything east of the Meuse to recreate the HRE border, Walloon Belgium is left as a vassal buffer state, and in order to compensate it for the loss of Flanders, and further weaken France in one swoop, it is given non-Dutch French Flanders.

This also creates a nice analogy between ATL France and Walloonia and OTL Germany and Austria. Alternatively, we could give Walloonia to Netherlands, which would create a nice analogy with OTL Czechoslovakia, but IMO this way is slightly preferable since it pays lip service to the principle of nationality, and mirrors old 1830 plans for the partition of Belgium.

However, on second thoughts, Walloonia ought to be significantly weakened here, since the eastern part of it goes to Germany, so it is well possible that Netherlands may be able to keep Walloon irredentism down, differently from 1830, and be willing to have it back. So what do you suggest ? West Wallonia as an rump state or back to Netherlands ?? Both the Dietsland and the Greater Netherlands solututions seem like something Britain and Germany could agree upon to me.

Hm... wait a second here... wasn't Limburg in the Netherlands?

Well, a Belgian Limburg province does exist, but it is Flemish and should go to Netherlands. Sorry. I will correct the item thusly, to clarify what goes to whom.

"France shall cede the arrondissement of Dunkirk to Netherlands and the rest of the departments of Nord and Pas-de-Calais to Belgium.

Belgium shall cede Flanders (including the provinces of Antwerp, Limburg, Flemish Brabant, West Flanders, and East Flanders) to Netherlands, and the parts of the provinces of Liege, of Luxembourg, and of Namur, which lie east of the Meuse River, to Germany."

For reasons of looking nice, I'd replace 'France shall cede the rest of its colonies to the British Empire.' with 'France shall cede the remainder of her colonies to the British Empire.'

Good catch. I 'll edit the draft accordingly.

Also, I believe they would pay in French Francs.

Well, they payed 5 billions francs in 1871, and OTL WWI reparations were eventually established to 132 billion marks. I admit I have little idea on the exchange rates involved, and inflation differential between 1871 and 1910-1920, but I suppose 100 billion franks might be adequate, don't you think ? Lowering the amount a bit to account for the likely lesser duration of the war (France-Russia probably won't last longer than a couple years agains the Quadruple Alliance). But still a nice outrageous amount to make France economically crippled and revanchist and to account for the victors' anger towards recidivist warmonger French.

However, on second thoughts, the exact amount is somewhat difficult to establish. It is quite true that in case of another victorious war against France, the German elite would be quite willing to inflict heavy punitive reparations on France (there are some speeches of Bismarck where he threatens France to be "bled white" and "crippled for a generation" if it attacks Germany once again and loses it) and the British would be probably eagerly concurring as they did OTL. But OTL reparations were also established according to the damages caused by the war in Belgium and France, pensions for Allied veterans, and Allied war expenses, which would likely be rather lesser ITTL. I doubt that France-Russia could stand more than a couple years against the Quadruple Alliance. France here is especially fragile: even if we assume (as I do here) that Belgium resists the passage of the Anglo-German Army under pressure of the Wallonians (and seals his fate), it is highly doubtful that they could repeat the miracle of the Marne, with the BEF marching with the Wehrmacht, the Netherlands also quite possibly offering free passage and siding with the Quadruple Allaince, and the Italians hammering on the Alps.

Even if they do manage to stop the initial Allied rush (or the Allies do not attack from Belgium), I doubt France could resist more than a year, being hammered upon on two fronts and under heavy naval blockade.

Russia is another issue, I can well see them standing a couple years against the Anglo-German-Hungarians, until the collapse of France and the full onslaught of the whole German Army, the British attacking in Central Asia, and the Japanese in Machuria, overwhelm them, too. Hmm, maybe another thread on ATL WWI would be good.

No taking of all the patents?

Sorry, I'd forgotten it. I'm not at all persuaded that the 1914 France had many patents that Britain and Germany would find appetizing, so I got a nasty idea: what if we make it "patents and copyrights" ? All the rights to that abundant and successful 1800s French literature being transferred to the Allied Powers ;)

And why is Germany *called* the Greater German Empire? If it includes Austria, then that's still the German Empire! The distinction of 'greater' would not have developed for just Cisleithenia- too many people still remember the Confederation at the time the Empire was formed!

Agreed. I'll edit the preamble accordingly.

I also got the idea that Germany seizes the opportunity to revoke the internationalization of the Rhein.

Another thing: I think that either Britain or Germany would seize the opportunity to claim Belgian Congo. Since the UK is gobbling most of the French colonial empire, I assume it would go to Germany, it is contigous to its other colonies.
 
Last edited:

General Zod

Banned
I think this is going a bit too far. The Netherlands will not give up independence to Germany. It is very much possible though that close ties with Germany can be established. During OTL WWI they almost did join the Germans. The Dutch queen (Wilhelmina) was one of the most important reasons the Netherlands didn't. So with a couple of butterflies (easilu done with your early POD) that could change and the Netherlands are German allies from the start of the war. The Netherlands being rewarded with Flanders seems very reasonable and probably is the most important reason for them to join Germany. The thing to remember is that Limburg east of the Meusse is Dutch, not Belgium, so I doubt the Germans will get it.

The situation after the war will probably this. The Netherlands gains the Flemish parts of Belgium and France (with the possible exception of Brussels, I am not sure if it still has a Flemish speaking majority in those days). Closer ties to Germany are very probable, like a permanent alliance and a custom union, but the Netherlands will remain a sovereign nation. You could perhaps try to form a personal union between the Netherlands and Germany, marying the Dutch queen to the German crownprince (although the Netherlands is a democracy in those days, so the German king wouldn't have as much influence in Dutch politics as he would have in German politics).

OK, you make a convincing argument. Probably also the British would be rather more reassured if the Netherlands stay independent. So let's say Netherlands establishes close ties with Germany, a customs union (possibly also a monetary union) and a permanent military alliance. ITTL, there is also another factor which may justify Netherlands siding with the Allies, Britain is in the Quadruple Alliance with Germany, and differently from Belgium, the Dutch have little love for France in the early 1900s.

I've corrected the Limbug blunder, I meant Belgian Luxembourg, sorry. The idea of the dynastic marriage is nifty, but as you point out, it will have little influence on politics. It is also possible that the Kronprinz get married to some British or Italian royal princess, all the better to cement the recent brotherhood in arms.

Anyway, I would point out that I picture TTL German Empire to be slightly more liberal and democratic than OTL, both before and after the war. Since the simplest way to establish a British-German alliance in WWI is to assume that the cancer of Frederick III is butterflied away, so he survives till the 1910s-1920s and pushes for liberal reforms at home and an UK alliiance abroad. And after the war, the Centre party and the Social Democrats would likely successfully lobby for further democratization and expansion of the welfare state as the price of their loyalty during the war.
 
Belgium shall cede Flanders (including the provinces of Antwerp, Limburg, Flemish Brabant, West Flanders, and East Flanders) to Netherlands, and the parts of the provinces of Liege, of Luxembourg, and of Namur, which lie east of the Meuse River, to Germany."
I would like to point out that in 1918 (and earlier) there was no Flemish Brabant or a Waloon Brabant. That split occured much later, during the 1990's, before there only was the province of Brabant (if I can believe wikipedia, but it seems correct to me, I remember learning only of the Belgian province of Brabant in school around 1991). I think that in 1918 most of Brabant still had a Flemish speaking majority, including Brussels and some places now in Walloon brabant, like waterloo (I am not too certain of it though). I am not sure to what country Brabant would go. It has a Flemish majority, so the Netherlands would be obvious, but it also has a large Waloon minorty (and majority in some areas). Getting rid of you capital is hard for the new Belgium though and with Germany getting Liege, Luxembourg and half of Namur already, Belgium will be very small if Brabant becomes Dutch. The onlything left is Hainaut and the French parts. SO I think that Brabant will probably go to Belgium, together with western Namur, Hainaut and the French parts. Belgium still remains a very small country, but it still is bigger than OTL Luxembourg.
 
Yes. By checking on some Wiki maps, it seems the area of Dunkirk is the only one in French Flanders where the linguistic majority of a Dutch-Flemish dialect exists, so I used that as the criteria to establish what would go directly to Netherlands and what to the Belgium rump.



I assume that after the experience of WWI (I'm assuming here that ATL Belgium sides with France at the onset of the war and resists German-British passage), Britain and Germany are deeply skeptical on the value of neutral Belgium as a bulwark against France, and wish to strengthen allied Netherlands. Yet, they are also mindful of the experience of 1830 and skeptical about recreating the United Kingdom of Belgium-Netherlands.

Solution: they partition it; all Flemish areas go with Netherlands, Germany annexes everything east of the Meuse to recreate the HRE border, Walloon Belgium is left as a vassal buffer state, and in order to compensate it for the loss of Flanders, and further weaken France in one swoop, it is given non-Dutch French Flanders.

This also creates a nice analogy between ATL France and Walloonia and OTL Germany and Austria. Alternatively, we could give Walloonia to Netherlands, which would create a nice analogy with OTL Czechoslovakia, but IMO this way is slightly preferable since it pays lip service to the principle of nationality, and mirrors old 1830 plans for the partition of Belgium.

However, on second thoughts, Walloonia ought to be significantly weakened here, since the eastern part of it goes to Germany, so it is well possible that Netherlands may be able to keep Walloon irredentism down, differently from 1830, and be willing to have it back. So what do you suggest ? West Wallonia as an rump state or back to Netherlands ?? Both the Dietsland and the Greater Netherlands solututions seem like something Britain and Germany could agree upon to me.
Hm... well, I think both could have occured, and it is your TL, so I'd say the choice is yours.
I doubt that France-Russia could stand more than a couple years against the Quadruple Alliance. France here is especially fragile: even if we assume (as I do here) that Belgium resists the passage of the Anglo-German Army under pressure of the Wallonians (and seals his fate), it is highly doubtful that they could repeat the miracle of the Marne, with the BEF marching with the Wehrmacht, the Netherlands also quite possibly offering free passage and siding with the Quadruple Allaince, and the Italians hammering on the Alps.
Deutsches Heer, actually;). It wasn't the Wehrmach until 1935.

Russia is another issue, I can well see them standing a couple years against the Anglo-German-Hungarians, until the collapse of France and the full onslaught of the whole German Army, the British attacking in Central Asia, and the Japanese in Machuria, overwhelm them, too. Hmm, maybe another thread on ATL WWI would be good.
What does China do in all of this? With such overpowering forces arrayed against France and Russia, they might decide that, even with that long border with Russia, joining in the Alliance to regain at least of their rights and territories vis-a-vis Russia and France is worth it. Then again, maybe not...

Sorry, I'd forgotten it. I'm not at all persuaded that the 1914 France had many patents that Britain and Germany would find appetizing, so I got a nasty idea: what if we make it "patents and copyrights" ? All the rights to that abundant and successful 1800s French literature being transferred to the Allied Powers ;).
A nasty idea, that. I like it!
I also got the idea that Germany seizes the opportunity to revoke the internationalization of the Rhein..
I think the (more sane then OTL) German leadership would decide that angering Switzerland isn't really worth it.

Another thing: I think that either Britain or Germany would seize the opportunity to claim Belgian Congo. Since the UK is gobbling most of the French colonial empire, I assume it would go to Germany, it is contigous to its other colonies.
Well, why not have both? There's no rule saying it has to be kept as *one* colony, so why not partition it?
 

General Zod

Banned
I would like to point out that in 1918 (and earlier) there was no Flemish Brabant or a Waloon Brabant. That split occured much later, during the 1990's, before there only was the province of Brabant (if I can believe wikipedia, but it seems correct to me, I remember learning only of the Belgian province of Brabant in school around 1991).

Well, you're right. :eek: But I think the linguistic differences that the recent division of Brabant underlies were still highly relevant in the early 1900s.

I think that in 1918 most of Brabant still had a Flemish speaking majority, including Brussels and some places now in Walloon brabant, like waterloo (I am not too certain of it though).

Well, anyway I rather doubt that in the early 1900s the linguistic boundary between the Flemish and Waloons was any more significantly northern than today. This means the large majority of the territoy of the Brabant province was Flemish, and would surely go to the Dutch.

I am not sure to what country Brabant would go. It has a Flemish majority, so the Netherlands would be obvious, but it also has a large Waloon minorty (and majority in some areas).

Well, the Flemish-speaking areas of Brabant, including Bruxelles which was still mostly Dutch, would surely go to Netherlands. The Germans and British surely would not give a province whose majority is Flemish to Waloon Belgium for the sake of its Waloon minority. Besides, this would make a salient in the frontier, whereas divving up Brabant linguistically or giving the whole province to the Dutch creates a nice straightforward boundary. I'm just rather uncertain whether the Allies (and the Dutch) would care to divide the province and leave the equivalent of Waloon Brabant to Belgium, or just give it all to Netherlands.

Getting rid of you capital is hard for the new Belgium though

It sucks to lose wars. ;)

and with Germany getting Liege, Luxembourg and half of Namur already, Belgium will be very small if Brabant becomes Dutch.

Well, the portion of the Namur province that stays with Waloon Belgium is everything west of the Maas river, more like 70% than one-half.

The only thing left is Hainaut and the French parts. SO I think that Brabant will probably go to Belgium, together with western Namur, Hainaut and the French parts. Belgium still remains a very small country, but it still is bigger than OTL Luxembourg.

This remains true, and Belgium a small but viable nation, even if it is just made up of Hainaut, the western two-thirds of Namur, and the French parts. I really can't believe that the whole, mostly-Flemish Brabant could ever stay with Belgium, not with France a vanquished enemy. IMO the only issue is whether the Allies care to partition it along linguistic lines, or just give it all to Netherlands. I think it might go either way. If we choose the former option, a provision could be inserted in the treaty so that "the part of the Brabant province with a Flemish majority" goes to the Netherlands.
 
I think the likely and believable PoD that makes things easier to understand is: No US Intervention in WW1. This could mean that there is a nasty incident where the UK sinks an American Merchant Ship on the high seas or something to that effect. Whatever the situation, Wilson doesn't feel like he has to enter WW1, and the Pro-UK lobby, recognized as "part of the problem" is also attacked with sedition laws. (Wilson was not really a great guy.)

Let's go with this one, rather than have a 1800s PoD:

This PoD doesn't change WW1 much at first. But after Brest-Litvosk, Germany is able to redeploy her forces against France in 1917--and is able to win a crushing victory against France. Paris is encircled--and the French Army, after repeated attempts to liberate the city, expend most of their strength in nearly-suicidal attacks to retake it. These efforts fail, and after recognizing that Paris is lost to them, the French sue for peace.

This leads to a total collapse of forces in Europe. In a 1918 campaign, a Austrian-Hungarian/German joint offensive smashes the Italian Army, itself already badly beaten by the battles of Caporetto. Italy's poor showing in the war was now going to turn into a total disaster.

This leaves the UK as the last serious combatant in the war. Although the Central Powers have no way to defeat the UK in anything more than indirect blows to wayward colonies, neither does the UK have any way to crush the Central Powers. A white peace is made with the UK.

If this is the PoD, then perhaps we can work on this as the starting point, rather than generating an ATL argument.
 

General Zod

Banned
Hm... well, I think both could have occured, and it is your TL, so I'd say the choice is yours.

Decisions, decisions. ;) It's that I'm uncertain whether to let Waloonia and French Flanders play the part of the ATL Anschluss or the ATL Sudetenland. Even if the former is maybe more plausible.

Deutsches Heer, actually ;). It wasn't the Wehrmach until 1935.

I humbly accept the rebuke, master. :eek:

What does China do in all of this? With such overpowering forces arrayed against France and Russia, they might decide that, even with that long border with Russia, joining in the Alliance to regain at least of their rights and territories vis-a-vis Russia and France is worth it. Then again, maybe not...

I was toying with the idea of letting China side with the Entente, if I can justify it somehow. Maybe to make the Chinese leadership more worried with the British encroachment than with the Russian-French one at a critical moment.

I think the (more sane then OTL) German leadership would decide that angering Switzerland isn't really worth it.

Well, with the new borders, the only countries that need free navigation on the Rhein are the Dutch and the Swiss. The Dutch are already going to have a customs union with Germany, and the Swiss can certainly negotiate a bilateral customs treaty with Germany, and I doubt that Berlin would deny a decent one to the Swiss. But I like the idea of imperial Germany throwing off the last traces of its historical weakness and regaining full sovreignity on its rivers. Besides, after WWI, with France on its knees, and Italy an ally, it's not like Germany really have to worry about Switzerland's feelings. Probably, by the time this treaty gets signed, the Swiss are fervently praying that no German or Italian politician gets any partition scheme in mind. Those who are not currently agitating for union with the victors, that is.

But I suppose the following provision may be added to the treaty:

"The internationalization of navigation on the Rhein river is hereby abrogated. Germany pledges to ensure that the commerce of Netherlands and Switzerland will retain freedom of navigation on the Rhein."

Well, why not have both? There's no rule saying it has to be kept as *one* colony, so why not partition it?

Possibly, it's an idea that I've toyed with myself, but I've found it rather difficult to implement. Because AFAIK any such partition would be rather unequal in value, since most of the resource-rich areas of Congo would fall to Britain, as they are close to Rhodesia. Even if some adjustments of the Rhodesian border can certainly be made.

But if the whole block must go to either country, it seems more balanced to go to Germany. Germany is not claiming pretty much anything of the French Empire in Asia.

I would expect that Germany could sell South West Africa and/or Tanganyka to the British Empire, in order to fulfill a claim on Belgian Congo. Far better to have a mostly contigous colonial empire in Equatorial Africa, whileas Tanganyka may be rather useful to the British Empire to establish its coveted continuity between Cape and Cairo, and Namibia would round up South Africa.
 

General Zod

Banned
If this is the PoD, then perhaps we can work on this as the starting point, rather than generating an ATL argument.

What problem do you have with Italy and Britain in the Central Powers ?? :confused::( I can certainly imagine Britain staying neutral or going with the Entente, it all boils down to butterflying certain political developments in late 1800s Germany, but I very much wish to keep Italy on the winning side, thank you.
 
What problem do you have with Italy and Britain in the Central Powers ?? :confused::( I can certainly imagine Britain staying neutral or going with the Entente, it all boils down to butterflying certain political developments in late 1800s Germany, but I very much wish to keep Italy on the winning side, thank you.

Mostly, the problem is the conduct of the war.

If this war is really everyone vs. France and Russia (and why would that be the case?) then what is the nature of this conflict?

This combination of forces suggests that France is mowed down in 1914--which would mean that this isn't a "Great War" but another quick series of skirmishes that fail to resolve power disputes in Europe. Think about it--you'd have the BEF providing the critical support for Germany to grab Paris instead of holding off the German offensive. Throw in that France would have to garrison the Italian Border as well and you can see how this conflict isn't going to look like WW1 at all.

So this isn't even a reverse Versailles scenario--you've made the conflict too one-sided in favor of the Central Powers. France and Russia are humiliated but the conflict is over by Christmas and points are made. If the war is over by Christmas, Germany is boastful, France is annoyed, but brutal piece arrangements aren't made and perhaps, issues aren't settled.

To get a bitter peace, you need a very bitter war--but this combination of forces simply will not provide it. You'll have a quick stomping, like Prussia taking down Austria in the 1860s.

If the situation was really as you have described it, then Germany has been mostly successful at maintaining Bismarck's system of alliances and France remains essentially isolated. OTL's trigger of Austria going after Serbia would leave France and Russia aware of their inability to resist the move and they would not mobilize, otherwise they'll get crushed. Indeed, for this war to somehow become a long war is near ASB--how is it possible that France and Russia can Resist the combination of forces for long--or possible that they would be so delusional as to not end the war with small concessions quickly?

In short, you've got a smashing on your hands. Switching the allegiance of the United Kingdom is too decisive.
 

General Zod

Banned
I acknowledge the problem, especially as it concerns France being mowed down in 1914, but I'm highly doubtful that Russia could be brought on its knees by Christmas. IMO one year or two would be necessary.

I'm also doubtful that a quick stomping would be an obstacle to inflicting a bitter peace, especially on France. Germany would be quite willing to cripple those aggressive revanchists for good, since the deal of 1870 would have proven to be quite insufficient. There are 1880s speeches by BIsmarck where he warns France that if it starts another war with Germany and loses it, any peace deal will be much more punitive than 1870 (and prophetically says the same will happen if Germany loses). And they would still be willing to turn non-Russian subjects of the Czar into their client states. Nor I see Italy failing to gorge itself on claims for French territories and colonies, nor UK unwilling to grab French colonies or push down Russia a couple notches.

What I agree is that if the war is significantly shorter and less destructive than OTL, there will be less of the bitterness that led to massive reparations. But I can see the willingness on the part of Germany and its allies to inflict a quite territorially-punitive peace on France and Russia, as soon as the first shot is fired. After all, the September Program was produced soon after the start of the war.

Beside, if they can win easily, why they should be willing to give their enemies a lenient peace, especially ones so implacable as France or so dangerous as Russia ?

I also agree that if the war is not as destructive as OTL, the willingness to seek a rematch will be higher, on the part of France and Russia, so a WWII could come early (even if the main issue here is not the belligerence of the defeated nations, but how early they manage to stave off the post-war chaos, I don't see neither the Third Republic nor the Czar being forgiven a total defeat, and rearm effectively).

I also agree that another great war would be necessary to settle the power disputes in Europe effectively. Russia especially would need another defeat.

However, I am not unwilling to discuss the case of equalizing the sides a bit by letting the UK remain neutral, or even if really really necessary taking the Entente's side (even if geopolitically I fancy the Anglo-German alliance much more). What I deem really necessary is Germany winning (obviously ;)), Italy staying with Germany, and the Hapsburg problem being settled for good before the war with the Germany-Italy-Hungary partition (which settles a lot of the problems the CPs had for good, especially Italy's loyalty, and many of the national problems A-H had).

If we keep UK a neutral friendly to Germany, for the sake of our present discussion, it mostly means they won't be so ready to gobble most of France's colonial empire (OTOH, they might just claim a substantial amount at the peace table, as the price of their neutrality).

If UK is in the Entente, it just means they will mostly likely get a white peace. But I dislike the option. Enimity between Britain and Germany in WWI was just the product of the horrible political and diplomatic blunders by dimwitted William II and his yesmen.

The rest of the Reverse Versailles peace treaty would still be left mostly unchanged. A war between France-Russia and Germany-Italy-Hungary would still last a couple years.
 
Here's a counter proposal--Austria Hungary part of the Entente, UK Neutral.

This way, Italy gets bribed with AH territory, and Germany sides with Russia over the Serbian tensions. This would also lead to your scenario of Austria being annexed into Germany afterward.

I would assume this means the USA and Japan would sit out the conflict as well.
 

General Zod

Banned
Here's a counter proposal--Austria Hungary part of the Entente, UK Neutral.

This way, Italy gets bribed with AH territory, and Germany sides with Russia over the Serbian tensions. This would also lead to your scenario of Austria being annexed into Germany afterward.

I would assume this means the USA and Japan would sit out the conflict as well.

Germany and Russia allied would be even more unbalanced than Germany and Britain. Germany-Russia-Italy vs. A-H and France would be over even more quickly than Germany-Italy-Hungary vs. France-Russia. Therefore I would prefer to keep the modified Triple Alliance idea, and keep UK neutral. What's the problem with an early partition of the Hapsburg Empire in 1866-1870 ? It's a neat power redistribution, wholly feasisble with a good butterfly/PoD, that deals away with many of the weaknesses that burdened the CPs, and it does not, by itself, alter the power balance so radically as to make an very quick CP victory like, as alliance with Russia or UK would (nonetheless, it's that moderate power boost that would make an eventual CP victory all but inevitable, if UK stays out; maybe also if UK goes entente, but they the CP really need the Ottomans).

As it concerns the rest, I agree that the USA would remain neutral whatever the scenario (if UK not in the Entente, they would lack a casus belli). I also agree that if the UK is neutral, Japan might stay neutral for most of the war. However, I could see Japan eventually backstabbing Russia, when it looks close to defeat.
 
Well. If the Hapsburgs are gone (Perhaps AH collapsed as a result of the war between Prussia and Austria) you've butterflied the layout of the Balkans entirely. This is no small thing--the Ottoman Empire might be a factor as well here.

Obviously, you've just killed the trigger for WW1. No AH means no Franz Ferdinand. Also, Italy would then want to expand into Germany and Hungary--which suggests a problem with power alignment.

Germany with Austria, Bohemia and Slovenia included is going to be a monster. Hungary, though, would be highly unstable and would probably not be pursuing claims in the Balkans.

We know that France and Germany have to oppose each other. That's a Given. Russia supporting Serbia is probably a given, and the Ottoman Empire is going to be looking to retake Egypt from the UK.

So, maybe something like:
Germany, Hungary, Russia, Ottoman Empire vs. France, UK, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Japan.

OTL Italy's ambition for territorial gain led it to backstab its allies. I would expect that this means that whoever holds Dalmatia and Tirol is going to be Italy's enemy. I think this is an odd alliance for Germany and Italy to ally here.
 
Top