Creating a stable Europe in a CP win after WW1

That divisions will be composed by men that once the war end will want to go back home and stop fighting, even doing simply garrison duty will be not accepted and there will be revolts as happened in RL with the entente

France occupied the Rhineland from the very end of the war to 1920 in exactly the same circumstances and Ober Ost stayed in Russia until 1919 despite losing the war. Saying a victorious Germany couldn't do what it did do and what France did isn't much of an argument.

France can 'simply' go to a hyperinflationary phase making reparation moot, the Roubles become worthless due to the civil war and same for France.

The gold is still good, and if France starting deliberately trying to shaft German reparations then Germany will increase their occupation; the French occupation was extended 3 times, they occupied Frankfurt in 1920 and reoccupied the Rhineland in 1923, so Germany can do all that.

And what the Kaiser say and what will really happen are entirely two different things; it will not the first, second or 100th times that promise will be broken during that war and after. In poor words, no Germany is not that magic semiomnipotent entity that by some divine right will skip all the social, economic and political troubles that afflicted Europe in OTL in the immediate postwar, expecially due to her being overextended and with her two biggest allies on the verge of implosion plus much of her new subjects not really happy of the new management

The Kaiser and co weren't happy with what he had to promise in the Easter Message, but by 1917 they knew they couldn't deny 10 million ex soldiers their political rights without a revolution which was why it was publicly announced to the nation.
 
For the nth time, i know it but the OP ask simply and precisely what Germany needed to do, not what she wanted to do...that are two very different things.

And again, "what Germany needed to do" does not even remotely correlate to giving up bits of Alsace-Lorraine. It is a broken type of logic that supposes France would never stop waging wars trying to re-gain Alsace-Lorraine and that no type of rapprochement was possible with Germany holding Metz.

ot be a war, but the biggest conflict know to men till that moment, a conflict were even the victors look scarcely better than the loser;

And yet IOTL France did not cede any part of its territory to Germany.
 
Last edited:
France occupied the Rhineland from the very end of the war to 1920 in exactly the same circumstances and Ober Ost stayed in Russia until 1919 despite losing the war. Saying a victorious Germany couldn't do what it did do and what France did isn't much of an argument.



The gold is still good, and if France starting deliberately trying to shaft German reparations then Germany will increase their occupation; the French occupation was extended 3 times, they occupied Frankfurt in 1920 and reoccupied the Rhineland in 1923, so Germany can do all that.



The Kaiser and co weren't happy with what he had to promise in the Easter Message, but by 1917 they knew they couldn't deny 10 million ex soldiers their political rights without a revolution which was why it was publicly announced to the nation.

Not really, France was also helped by Belgian, Italian, American (at the beginning at least a third of the occupation force) and British troops and had not the necessity to prop up the A-H and Ottoman Empire that are on the verge of imploding, putting down rebellion and prop up the puppet goverment in East Europe and put down troublemakers at home all by herselfs and all at the same time; hell the troops sent in Russia mutined after a little time they were there

The occupation of the Rhineland in 1923 had not been very smooth in the end and was stopped more or less before had become an embarasment; and while French extended 3 times the occupation...she had not really bring home the reparation in the end and regarding Ober Ost IRC they promised land and work to their men to keep them there.

And the most probable thing that they will do will be paying lip service and try to effectively made any promise done hollow...and that if they are smart, otherwise they will simply postpone the effective; sorry i really don't see the Kaiser, the Junkers and the german enstablishment paying the bill to the socialist for their support during the war and keep their promise of enlarged franchise, even because by 1918/19 many people will want much more than what they are ready to give.


And again, "what Germany needed to do" does not even remotely correlate to giving up bits of Alsace-Lorraine. It is a broken type of logic that supposes France would never stop waging wars trying to re-gain Alsace-Lorraine and that no type of rapprochement was possible with Germany holding Metz.

I haven't read your solution, so please speak

And yet IOTL France did not cede any part of its territory to Germany.

Well everybody knows that the interwar period was one of the most stable and peacefull time in Europe and had not relations with the start of the second world war...yes is sarcasm.
 
Not really, France was also helped by Belgian, Italian, American (at the beginning at least a third of the occupation force) and British troops

And they didn't want to go home? Widespread desertion is for losers, not winners.

And the most probable thing that they will do will be paying lip service and try to effectively made any promise done hollow...and that if they are smart, otherwise they will simply postpone the effective; sorry i really don't see the Kaiser, the Junkers and the german enstablishment paying the bill to the socialist for their support during the war and keep their promise of enlarged franchise, even because by 1918/19 many people will want much more than what they are ready to give.

On the other hand the Kaiser might push it through in order to be rid of the Silent Dictatorship, or to forestall a revolution of returned soldiers. It came up in 1914 and again in 1917, its an idea whose time had come.
 
And they didn't want to go home? Widespread desertion is for losers, not winners.

Not in this kind of war, here winner, loser...at the end of the day don't really matter and sure that they wanted go home, in OTL they were retired more or less gradually (and in some case not so gradually as the americans by July 1919 were basically gone and same for the italians) and even the French used a lot of colonial troopers to find men.


On the other hand the Kaiser might push it through in order to be rid of the Silent Dictatorship, or to forestall a revolution of returned soldiers. It came up in 1914 and again in 1917, its an idea whose time had come.

First i don't really count on Willie political capacity and intelligence to make things happen and knowing that something need to be done and having the will to do it are two different thing, look at the mess south of the German border aka Austria-Hungary as the premiere example of this.
 
Not in this kind of war, here winner, loser...at the end of the day don't really matter and sure that they wanted go home, in OTL they were retired more or less gradually (and in some case not so gradually as the americans by July 1919 were basically gone and same for the italians) and even the French used a lot of colonial troopers to find men.

Armies don't disband after wars, they return to peacetime strengths more or less, with men serving the longest being demobilised first. In WW1 Germany went from about 100 to 251 divisions, they could send several million men home and still have dozens of divisions available for occupation duties. Also being an occupier in a conquered territory is a pretty sweet gig for the average young working class bloke straight from a dirt farm or factory; getting a girl for a few cigarettes, raiding the local's wine cellars and 'scrounging souvenirs' and the like while getting paid. Sure the boys want to go home, but they aren't going to desert and become criminals to do so and IOTL victors managed it easily enough, the changes proposed here aren't too different from OTL.

First i don't really count on Willie political capacity and intelligence to make things happen and knowing that something need to be done and having the will to do it are two different thing, look at the mess south of the German border aka Austria-Hungary as the premiere example of this.

You think Willie is too stupid to avoid a revolution when he's already announced the means to avoid it? I don't.
 
Armies don't disband after wars, they return to peacetime strengths more or less, with men serving the longest being demobilised first. In WW1 Germany went from about 100 to 251 divisions, they could send several million men home and still have dozens of divisions available for occupation duties. Also being an occupier in a conquered territory is a pretty sweet gig for the average young working class bloke straight from a dirt farm or factory; getting a girl for a few cigarettes, raiding the local's wine cellars and 'scrounging souvenirs' and the like while getting paid. Sure the boys want to go home, but they aren't going to desert and become criminals to do so and IOTL victors managed it easily enough, the changes proposed here aren't too different from OTL.

The little insignificant problem is that people nevertheless will want really to go back home after a while, to their family and their lifes and keep troops mobilizated it's not really a good thing for economy, expecially one that need to go back to peacetime foot and frankly it's expensive; and your sweet gigs it's not so sweets...it's not WWII, the people around you don't like your kind very much, the girls will be vary to even talk to you for fear of repercussion and expect (as Rhineland) passive resistance.
Not only that, but the 'sweet gig' of the occupation duty will be the minor part of the job, as said both the Ottoman and the A-H are on the verge of implosion, Polish and Ukrainian are ready to revolt and expect something akin to the italalian Biennio Rosso happen in Germany proper...so no fight it's not over.
Even the entente had in theory the manpower and military capacity to quell the rebellion in Albania and Ireland, eliminate the Bolshevick and enforce all her decision with force, expecially in Turkey...but there were not the popular will and neither the troops had the desire to continue the fight and wanted go back home, so Ireland gone free, the Treaty of Lousanne was sent in the dustbin, etc. etc., and you know, the same will happen to the Germans because at the end of the days they are human beings and they have suffered to much; frankly just a quick look at the immediate postwar history make clear that IOTL the victors had not really managed easily and basically just limited themselfs to damage control and limit the loss, the only real place were they have concentrated their effort was Germany and was due to French pressure and because it was the biggest guys of the CP.
In poor words, they will be tired, they will want to go home, they will want to get back to their life and stop fighting, they will want reap the benefit of the victory, etc. etc., continue to fighting for the glory of the Kaiser and the Junker is not among this things.

You think Willie is too stupid to avoid a revolution when he's already announced the means to avoid it? I don't.

It's not a question of being stupid but simply having the will and capacity to effectively reform (and historically there are not many example of this, even in case were the real problem and solution was know), but not only Willie by 1918/19 is politically worth less than a 3 euros coin, and this it's a thing that can be applied for all the German enstablishment, but effectively giving up power to the socialist is more easy said than done, i doubt that the junkers, the military big wig and the others conservative will gone quietly and gently into the night and by 1919 the promise done by the Kaiser are not enough as what obtained at any treaty will be not enough, why? Because with so many millions dead and crippled nothing will be enough as by an end of the war in 1918 (and even worse if in 1919) things had gone too far to be resolved with some half hearted reform
 
Armies don't disband after wars, they return to peacetime strengths more or less, with men serving the longest being demobilised first.

Which means that those retained for occupation duty will be the most recently called up, who in 1918 were getting pretty young. So most of them won't yet have wives and kids to go back to. They may miss Mum and Dad at times, but that's not the same thing. And being in many cases fresh out of school, they are used to doing as they're told. Schools in those days were hardly less autocratic than armies.
 
The cost of the war to Germany was about 330% of 1913 GDP, A-H was 430%, Turkey's 160% and Bulgaria was 230% of their respective 1913 GDP. This was all basically internal debt but inflicting hyper-inflation on a 'victorious' population to address it may be hard to swallow. By 1918 prices in Germany are up 4 fold on pre-war, A-H 16 times and Turkey 18 times. Revolution is coming.

Germany has three of Europe’s great powers to plunder, they’re not going to have to worry about hyperinflation unless they completely wave reparations for some reason and proceed to run their new economic bloc into the ground.
 
If they make a customs union, the improved trade will make people richer (at least some people), so they'll rather accept the German occupation. If this leads to lots of inequality with nothing in return, then of course you may have big problems 20 years later. Maybe Wilhelm II dying ~1940 and his successor being better would help avoiding the breakdown? Of course, that's the old story "If only you had a genius in charge..."
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I don't think WW1 has the capacity to create a stable Europe. The Kaiserreich timeline is asb, but it's probably spot on that the new German dominance of Europe is weak, more like a house of cards ready to collapse than anything stable.

Let's just take a look at Eastern Europe and Germany's plans there for example:

United Baltic Duchy- State made for the German speaking elite, would obviously have huge issues with Latvian and Estonian nationalism

Poland- Germany would probably completely ignore earlier promises of a sovereign Poland and try to install a puppet regime heavily tied to Germany, which for obvious reasons wouldn't be appreciated in Poland. Could well see the real center of power be the German delegation, rather than the actual Polish government.

Belarus- Belarussian national awakening was in it's early stages after WW1, so when strong nationalism is an obstacle in Poland and the Baltics, a weak national consciousness would probably be an issue in Belarus.

the Ukraine- Ukrainian nationalism was strongest in Ukrainian speaking parts of Austria- Hungary, which of course will not be part of the new Ukrainian nation. The Ukrainian People's Republic, the first government of independent Ukraine was overthrown by a Conservative Authoritarian government under Pavlo Skoropadskyi (who had German support), OTL his government was overthrown by a left wing government after the German retreat, which in turn fell to the Bolsheviks, and while all this happened the Anarchist black army of Nestor Makhno fought basically everyone in parts of Eastern Ukraine. With a German victory the Hetmanate would probably have survived and a Authoritrian government been secured, one that would most likely face increasing discontent.
 
Last edited:
The cost of the war to Germany was about 330% of 1913 GDP, A-H was 430%, Turkey's 160% and Bulgaria was 230% of their respective 1913 GDP. This was all basically internal debt but inflicting hyper-inflation on a 'victorious' population to address it may be hard to swallow. By 1918 prices in Germany are up 4 fold on pre-war, A-H 16 times and Turkey 18 times. Revolution is coming.

What sort of revolution? Would it be Russia 1917 or Italy 1922?

FTM the French franc lost four-fifths of its prewar value, yet France had no revolution.
 
Well all this is on the verge of ASB, but if Germany decide to play smart well, better a negotiated end of the hostilities with the Entente, giving them some concession like:

- Referendum in A-L (basically an excuse to give to France the French part)
- evacuate Belgium and give it some reparation money
- let the Entente keep the colonies conquered (they are a waste of money), maybe just take Congo in exchange of let Belgium go.

For A-H go for controlled demolition, distribute some piece to appease the various border nations and keep Hungary as your sidekick/attack dog for the Balkans (everybody hate them so they need Germany to keep going).
Try to integrate France and Italy in the economy of Mitteleuropa (this is the reason of the lenient peace and to give them some scrap) and go for some Washington Treaty like agreement between all the great powers, more importantly try to use a light hand in east europe and somewhat limit how much you enslave the locals to the German economic interest, a too tight grasp will cause only revolutions and insurrection and Germany is not in a great shape.

- Germany has just won a very bloody and costly war against France. Would it go giving up territory to it? Not happening.
- Paying reparation to Belgium? If Belgium accepted the germans offer at the onset of war maybe. After fighting them for years? The belgians can be happy if they are left terrotorrially intact. They were those in the german leadership who wanted to annex Liege/Lüttich.

As I see it in such a late victory Germany doesnt really have the power to assert its will. Germany too is on its last leg and had more than enough of the war. They will make a peace treaty. However when all of it comes crashing down with red revolution and soviet-russia driving west...

I think that beside stopping the russians Germany wont have the will to do much. Maybe accept the austrians germans when they petition to join Germany and intervene in Bohemia because of the germans there. But I dont see them sending troops to the Balkans. They are very tired and war veary at this point. And there really isnt anyone to stop them asserting their dominance in central and eastern europe, or on the balkans a few years later.

The real difference will come after things have settled down. Germany - unlike France - will be unquestionably the strongest power of Europe. The only ones who can potentially challenge them are the russians but I dont think Stalin would start a WWII on its own. And I dont see this Germany taken over by loons. So most likely no WWII in Europe.
 
What sort of revolution? Would it be Russia 1917 or Italy 1922?

FTM the French franc lost four-fifths of its prewar value, yet France had no revolution.

Take your pick: Revolutions

I don't have much faith in a military run economy.
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-onli...netary_consequences_the_german_case_revisited

A vivid public debate on financial demobilization began in 1917, but it had no echo in government circles. While financial mobilization had been carefully planned in Germany over many years, there was no comprehensive plan for financial demobilization after the war. The Reichsbank, however, since early 1918, made suggestions for the fiscal and monetary policies of the post-war years.
.

Win lose or draw, we're only nine meals from anarchy.
 
This trope is really tiring.

This doesn't mean that's not true, even his leaderships understood that the Empire was on the verge of falling apart or in the best case just become a German puppet if the war continued...and this 1917, this was the reason of the half-assed attempt to make peace while something was salvagable (or at least an attempt can be done), but here we talk of 1918 or even 1919.
And yes, the troops continued to fight, etc. etc. etc., the problem is not during the war, the external enemy (plus a lot of German help) will keep things going (more or less), the real problem is when the shot stop and people try to go back to their life
 
Perhaps Europe indeed needs both the slaughter of the Great War and the horrors to follow combined with the economic subjugation of the USA and threat of enslavement by Stalin to finally build anything less than an armed camp of would be vandals, but that was OTL, and maybe this ATL is just as ugly and oppressive and dystopic, maybe we need this Germany to be as brutal as the USSR and as domineering as the USA, crushing everyone into conformity so Europeans can live together without hating each other, only Germans. While that may be the same tortured path with different actors, the challenge is to see if an ATL Germany can indeed stumble into something that gets stability, prosperity and democracy without yet more war, genocide and repression. The Germans are not more villainous or heroic, instead they are left undefeated and holding the best hand of all bad hands, from those cards we hope to have a game that makes more winners, less losers and isn't settled in blood. I think the notion that any victor will build a better Europe is laughable, Utopia was a prison and a warning, here we get as dysfunctional a rule as any that at least has openings to evolve beyond just another 100 years or war, slavery and ruin. So I sympathize with the critics but if the scenario could happen then why not seek the potential and elucidate the foibles hat kept Europeans returning to the sword generation after generation. An undefeated Germany here brings good and bad, strength and weakness, its leadership will be needed and tested, it will fail, falter and flag, yet it might cut enough knots that progress is made, a generation or two at peace, even if under a proverbial Prussian jackboot does not easily shape out as the same under Hitler or Stalin, and from there has possibility to blossom rather than die. To me the cold hard reality is that this Europe will be unsettled and turbulent for about as long as it took the wall to fall and be as contentious as it is now, it will not be a utopia, it may have avoided the depths of depravity to be less humane, but that is not the worst price to pay or worst result from such calamity as was the Great War.
 
There is no "controled dismantling of Austria-Hungary" ITTL, it will be kept together or it will blow up in a civil war and probably in ethnic cleansing, Austria and Hungary are not going to stay iddle like OTL because Germany ITTL is not in the same power position as USA and its sattelites IOTL nor they have some Wilson to push for some foolishness like that. Even if there was that option, it would be a suboptimal solution, instead of a big country with many minorities you would have many countries with its own set of minorities, with the former majorities becoming the new minorities and many historical regions divided between ethnicities.

This doesn't mean that's not true

On the contrary, this trope is idiotic.
 
There is no "controled dismantling of Austria-Hungary" ITTL, it will be kept together or it will blow up in a civil war and probably in ethnic cleansing, Austria and Hungary are not going to stay iddle like OTL because Germany ITTL is not in the same power position as USA and its sattelites IOTL nor they have some Wilson to push for some foolishness like that. Even if there was that option, it would be a suboptimal solution, instead of a big country with many minorities you would have many countries with its own set of minorities, with the former majorities becoming the new minorities and many historical regions divided between ethnicities.



On the contrary, this trope is idiotic.

Austria Hungary was facing massive problems among other things ethnic violence in Galicia and the istrian cities, starvation in Vienna, the Hungarian aristocracy withholding food, troops and taxes from the other half of the empire, the army an especially the officer corps utterly gutted by the Russian front, the army itself demoralized, disorganized, the navy impotent and having lost a major battleship to a port raid, among many many other things.

In all probability you'd see 90s Yugoslavia style violence and ethnic cleansing, with Germany having to step in (and probably picking sides, and generally exacerbating the issue).

If nothing else Galicia is going to try and jump ship to unite with Russian Poland and that's going to trigger Ukrainian uprisings in Lviv.
 
There is no "controled dismantling of Austria-Hungary" ITTL, it will be kept together or it will blow up in a civil war and probably in ethnic cleansing, Austria and Hungary are not going to stay iddle like OTL because Germany ITTL is not in the same power position as USA and its sattelites IOTL nor they have some Wilson to push for some foolishness like that. Even if there was that option, it would be a suboptimal solution, instead of a big country with many minorities you would have many countries with its own set of minorities, with the former majorities becoming the new minorities and many historical regions divided between ethnicities.


What counts as "many"?

Assuming Galicia flakes off, it gets split between Poland and Ukraine - both German satellites. That aside, you get a separate Hungary and possibly a separate Croatia, neither of which has any reason to be anti-German, and an "Austria" which includes the Czech and Slovene areas, but is now majority-German, and is either part of the Reich or so tightly bound to it that she might as well be. All this is no doubt bad news for the House of Habsburg, but are the CPs as a whole any weaker in this configuration than in the former one?
 
Top