Eastern and Western Europe swap fates territoriality-wise after World War I

[Strategos' Risk]

WWI led to the breaking of empires across both alliance systems, and as such, we saw much of Central and Eastern Europe had the map redrawn, with new nations being formed and old ones being smashed apart.

But I think there's more to that as well. For whatever reason, what we think of as France seems much more fixed by the 19th century than say... Russia? Germany is a much newer state, sure, but the Napoleonic Wars had just ended decades before unification, and that involved some territorial shifts as well.

So how could western states had fallen to the political upheaval and redrawing of the maps that the east did?

Bonus if Britain falls into pieces.

Double bonus if the Iberian nations get roped into it somehow. Though given how the Spanish Civil War is right around the corner, and that had regionalist elements to it between the Basque Country and anarchist Catalonia, it isn't quite as farfetched.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I like this

It shows how real and unreal everything is at the same time

It can only really happen with a Central Powers victory, otherwise it is not WW1

But it would be some annihilatory victory late in the game.

France and Italy are the largest to break up, Belgium to disappear, Britain is certainly breaking apart since even in OTL it has Ireland in civil war

 

[Grey Wolf]

Italy could easily see Piedmont-Sardinia restored as the remnant of Italy

The Papal states return

Naples/Sicily does

The Emilian duchies?

Lombardy-Venetia is more complex, but as an Austrian vassal would make perfect sense, as would Tuscany

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I do think that it's going to be necessarily tough because France was homogenized by the 19th century, and there's nothing analogous to Austro-Hungary in the west. But yeah Italy definitely has the potential to get broken up. Very good point about how Belgium can be easily divvied up.

I guess triple bonus if the Netherlands or any other OTL neutral state gets dragged in as well, but that's probably too much of a tall order.

I suppose Germany would try to forcibly divide and conquer France by promoting local regionalisms and installing German princelings on mini-thrones, though that's probably a pipe dream by the 1910s.

This breaks the west/east simple split, but I suppose in the Balkans you can perhaps swap the fates between winners and losers:

Aftermath of World War I - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Grey Wolf]

What would you do with France?

Britanny independent

You could take Artois/Picardie and add it to Belgium as a new vassal state

Burgundy could be recreated but at what level of borders?

Alsace and Lorraine remnants would certainly be incorporated into Germany

Could you spin off Provence to Piedmont as compensation for loss of the rest of Italy?

Corsica as an independent kingdom

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Maybe some sort of rump Occitan state? Just doing a cursor Google Books search has yielded a promising source:

Sounds like it wouldn't have much in the way of popular legitimacy but maybe the Germans might try it out, if they were smart.

 

[Jonah Carter]

The issue here is that France and Italy aren't really multiethnic empires in the way Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire were. There were regional differences, of course, but does the concept of an Burgundian or Neapolitan state really hold the same sway as a Polish, Ukrainian, or Czech one?

Depending on how much you're willing to stretch the spirit of your question, the most I could see is France's colonies making an attempt to break away from the metropole during the last days of the war, then Germany ratifying their "independence" (read: informal subjugation to Germany) in the resulting peace treaties. It's still a stretch, but much less so than an independent Occitania.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Neither are multiethnic, but Italian unification is relatively recent and perhaps reversible during the WWI timeframe. As seen in a different WWI thread,

with a 1916-7 divergence “Italy” is really not as strong a uniting concept as it was after Vittorio Veneto—here it was some Piedmontese who’d overrun the peninsula 60 years ago, whose last king had been shot only in 1900

 

[Grey Wolf]

The issue here is that France and Italy aren't really multiethnic empires in the way Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire were. There were regional differences, of course, but does the concept of an Burgundian or Neapolitan state really hold the same sway as a Polish, Ukrainian, or Czech one?

Depending on how much you're willing to stretch the spirit of your question, the most I could see is France's colonies making an attempt to break away from the metropole during the last days of the war, then Germany ratifying their "independence" (read: informal subjugation to Germany) in the resulting peace treaties. It's still a stretch, but much less so than an independent Occitania.

I think the Central Powers would be stressing "legitimacy" and "historical lands" rather than any ethno-centric basis to these states. After all, the latter would make it far harder to hold their own empires together.

Brittany for example existed as an on/off quasi-independent dukedom until the 16th century, and the preservation of its culture and language can be used to support the revival of this, rather than to simply say "ethnic state".

Louis XV pushed the borders of France Eastwards in the North during the 17th century, and if you created some sort of enlarged Flanders state from these and half of Belgium, you can also stress historical "legitimacy". It would seem no less or no more weird than an enlarged revived Lithuania or Estonia would at the time.

French Navarre, centred on Pau, existed as an independent kingdom until the 17th century, and as a centre of Basque culture could hold its own as an entity outside of that of France. Again, you would be using the ethnic difference to support a restoration of historical "legitimacy"

In Italy, the lack of ethnic differences in the North does not preclude the restoration of the pre-uniification states due to the relatively recent occurrence of that event. A strong regionalism, for example in Tuscany, helps with the idea of restoring these legitimate states, and breaking up the illegitimate unified entity.

Of course, you could say that this is hypocrisy from the Germans and Austrians, but the winners get to determine the terms

 

[lukedalton]

In Italy, the lack of ethnic differences in the North does not preclude the restoration of the pre-uniification states due to the relatively recent occurrence of that event. A strong regionalism, for example in Tuscany, helps with the idea of restoring these legitimate states, and breaking up the illegitimate unified entity.

Sorry no, any nation created by the victors hoping to use regionalism will be like the one before unification, existing only thanks to the austrian bayonet; while recent by 1917 that kind of regionalism was dead or in the best case very fringe.
There can be a division due to ideological reason but all side will declare themself the legitimate government of Italy and want reunification

 

[Grey Wolf]

Sorry no, any nation created by the victors hoping to use regionalism will be like the one before unification, existing only thanks to the austrian bayonet; while recent by 1917 that kind of regionalism was dead or in the best case very fringe.
There can be a division due to ideological reason but all side will declare themself the legitimate government of Italy and want reunification

But Tuscany's regionalism exists to this day. There is a proud heritage there, and a proud identity.

Of course it is being restored by force of arms of the Central Powers

But it is capable of comparison to WW2 Slovakia or Croatia. These are entities that seemed to be created by the Axis for their own interests, but they had histories of their own, and assumed identities of their own. Their independence NOW blinds us to how they seemed to be weird aberations that were excised when the "logical" states of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were restored after WW2.

 

[Analytical Engine]

As a note - there is zero chance of a Papal State being restored. None.

Best case is a third Roman Republic covering central Italy.

 

[lukedalton]

But Tuscany's regionalism exists to this day. There is a proud heritage there, and a proud identity.

Of course it is being restored by force of arms of the Central Powers

But it is capable of comparison to WW2 Slovakia or Croatia. These are entities that seemed to be created by the Axis for their own interests, but they had histories of their own, and assumed identities of their own. Their independence NOW blinds us to how they seemed to be weird aberations that were excised when the "logical" states of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were restored after WW2.

Sure that there is a strong regionalism in Tuscany...as in many place of Italy if not all; this doesn't mean that they are ok in being a separate nation...hell provincialism in tuscany is much much stronger than regionalism and someone in Florence will...well dislike someone of Pisa much much more than someone of any other part of Italy. Slovackia and Croatia were differently ethnically and culturally much much less were the italian region expecially during this period where the fact of rinascimento and nationalism were at their strongest.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Just how strong was Italian identity in the Great War timeframe, and how bad could it get for it in the event of a Central Powers victory?

 

[khadidjaaishasaid283@gmai]

Idont agree that Frence is not a multietnical state, all of France, are oressured to be Frence, i could at least tell about lots of areas in France, who is not Icardue is more Belgium Elsas more german Lothringen the same, Bruttany a celthic country.Province the speak a southern form of french, areas in Pyreneas who are Basques.

 

[khadidjaaishasaid283@gmai]

It sould be intresting if someone could writew a story about Yoguslav civilwar hapend in France insted.

 

[Comte de Geneve]

Unfortunately that would be ASB, as much as I dislike using that term. 20th century France is a coherent national state, not a forced collection of different ethnic groups divided by religion, language and alphabet. I would say real non-French sentiment is limited to Corsica, in a limited extent, and to Brittany, in a more limited extent. Extremists from these two groups have set off occasional bombs and that's it.

 

[khadidjaaishasaid283@gmai]

Adisagree whit you, no outside power has put the different group to togheter you are right one that, but french revolution put this distinct territrories to gether, more than 200 years ago, No french, no unitarian french state.

 

[Ahab]

Would an independent Occtiania be seen as more out of place than an independent Belarus or Ukraine at the time?
If a victorious Germany established it and the separatist elites that were put to rule it were given a few years, then a national identity could be truly formed, with a unified dialect and constructed common history and national myth.
After a few years it would seem natural and people would argue that the Occatian ethnie was there all along, wishing for independence under French yoke.

 

[Genkou]

Western states had the advantage of being ethnically homogenous nation-states. So it would be more difficult, but there are totally fault lines, mostly on region.
Flanders, Wallonia. UK, Ireland. France, Brittany, Basque, Catalonia, Nice, Corsica. Idk enough about Italy.