Germans open peace negotiations before 1918 offensives?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Though I know its virtually ASB with Ludendorff making policy, but what if prior to the 1918 offensives the Germans started negotiations for peace, planning on using the talks to demoralize the Allies as they attacked to gain leverage during the talks? I'm sure Ludendorff would demand a harsh peace as his starting deal. How would that effect the Allied camp and how would the German offensives impact the negotiations?
 
I would think the Allies would demand the evacuation of France and Belgium and the end of USW as the start of any face to face negotiations.

But if the Germans announced unilaterally something halfway reasonable, like 1914 status quo with the French and British but the Germans pick up Liege maybe the Germans pick up some home front morale points "see were being reasonable but they wont deal with us, they only want the destruction of Germany" type of thing.

I doubt France and Britain or their morale would be affected by such an announcement though. Germany still wants their colonies back and will keep Alsace Lorraine and with Russia weak and communist will be set up well for a round 2. Its pretty obvious who the loser is here and its France. Strong reasons still for France to fight hard.

Now if Germany announced that Alsace Lorraine could be returned to France as part of a peace deal I think that would have a great effect of France and it would be hard for a French Government not to negotiate but that is as you say ASBish.
 
WI Germany demands a neutral buffer zone that includes: Switzerland, Alsace, Lorraine. Saarland, Luxembourg, the Ardennes, Friesland, etc.?
 
The Entente countries have never agreed to enter negotiations throughout the whole war, despite several offers. They knew their aims were only achievable by dictate. - If decisively beaten, they might have agreed to talk; but one had to beat them first. - In 1918, with the US in the war, they would not negotiate - they knew they were going to win, even if it took until 1919 or 1920.
So, whom should Germany offer negotiations? In this respect, Ludendorff was more realist than the diplomats. He knew he had to beat them first.
 
The Entente countries have never agreed to enter negotiations throughout the whole war, despite several offers. They knew their aims were only achievable by dictate. - If decisively beaten, they might have agreed to talk; but one had to beat them first. - In 1918, with the US in the war, they would not negotiate - they knew they were going to win, even if it took until 1919 or 1920.
So, whom should Germany offer negotiations? In this respect, Ludendorff was more realist than the diplomats. He knew he had to beat them first.

You are probably correct, although we really have no way of knowing for sure how the French, British, (and I guess American and Italian) people would react if Germany offered truly conciliatory negotiating terms in 1918. To some extent, these terms would have to offer at minimum the following: (1) A complete and unconditional withdrawal of German forces from France and Belgium, (2) Restoration of Alsace-Lorraine to France (or at minimum an internationally supervised plebiscite on its future), and (3) for Britain, a significant reduction in the size and capability of the German navy. Also, there remains the issue of the Austrians and Italians.

On the other hand, it is just as likely the Entente powers will see conciliatory terms only as evidence that Germany knows it is losing the war and simply reject them out of hand so they can dictate a more comprehensive peace after a military victory.
 
... we really have no way of knowing for sure how the French, British, (and I guess American and Italian) people would react if Germany offered truly conciliatory negotiating terms in 1918. To some extent, these terms would have to offer at minimum the following: (1) A complete and unconditional withdrawal of German forces from France and Belgium, (2) Restoration of Alsace-Lorraine to France (or at minimum an internationally supervised plebiscite on its future), and (3) for Britain, a significant reduction in the size and capability of the German navy. Also, there remains the issue of the Austrians and Italians.

Negotiations means you state your starting position, as does the other side, and then the haggling starts.
If Germany had to surrender everything before the Entente would be inclined to enter talks, that's not what usually is called negotiations - it's plain surrender...
 

tenthring

Banned
As someone that has done some high stakes negotiation in my life, having "time on your side" is a huge plus. When all you've got to do is BS a bit its a huge advantage.

What's to stop the Entente from entertaining negotiations for a month or two and then cutting it off once the Americans have arrived and the Germans have waited out their only window of victory.
 

Perkeo

Banned
Wilson and his 14 points, of course.

They tried that in October/November 1918 - and got Foch, Clemenceau and Poincaré plus LLoyd George and 440 paragraphs of the Versailles Dictate.

The Germans - like the Russians in the first round of Brest-Litowsk, resembled the Black Knight character in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: He's obviously loosing but keeps fighting on and on and on until he has neither arms or legs. Then he says "All right, we'll call it a draw."

Wilsons 14 Points were made when the German army was about to storm into a collapsing Russia. When Germany finally did surrender, the Entente was about to storm into a collapsing Germany.

Of course you don't get the same peace offer under such fundamentally different circumstances.
 
As someone that has done some high stakes negotiation in my life, having "time on your side" is a huge plus. When all you've got to do is BS a bit its a huge advantage.

What's to stop the Entente from entertaining negotiations for a month or two and then cutting it off once the Americans have arrived and the Germans have waited out their only window of victory.

Probably the sheer inertia that the soldiers will take. The French had cases of mutiny/not attacking in OTL. So maybe the Entente too is on the count?
Because their soldiers are weary too and will not like the BS if it is causing new and numerous casualties.
 
Negotiations means you state your starting position, as does the other side, and then the haggling starts.
If Germany had to surrender everything before the Entente would be inclined to enter talks, that's not what usually is called negotiations - it's plain surrender...

They are not surrendering everything. They are proposing a return to pre-war conditions in the west for a peace treaty/armistice that gives them a free hand to enforce the Brest-Litovsk terms however they desire. Germany comes out as the clear victor. They achieved all of their most fanciful war aims in the east and held off the French, British, and Americans in the west. Germans entered WW1 believing strongly that they could not win a protracted two front war, so if by 1918 they succeeded in holding off the western allies and completely defeated Russia they have gained quit a bit. Also, they have only offered to return to prewar borders. There is still a lot to negotiate, such as who pays reparations, how much, and to whom.
 
I agree. Given that what happened in 1917/18 in the East is a massive German strategic victory, it should be able to afford the Allies (and especially Wilson) a few treats:

-clear schedule for partial withdrawal of troops from France and Belgium after an armistice, and completely after the peace treaty
-payment to Belgium (bot not France) for the damage done and the violation of neutrality
-offering a plebiscite in Alsace-Lorraine under neutral observation within 12 months
-offering a fleet deal to Britain
-giving up most of the colonies (I know it just means accepting the Facts)
-agreeing to some other of the fanciful 14 Points (no secret diplomacy, freedom of the seas and such)
-and while we are at it, the Germans could also propose a federalization of Austria-Hungary and give Bolzano to Italy
 
They tried that in October/November 1918 - and got Foch, Clemenceau and Poincaré plus LLoyd George and 440 paragraphs of the Versailles Dictate.

Ludendorff decided to wreck the German army in between when the 14 points were made public and when the Germans answered in October.
 
The Germans - like the Russians in the first round of Brest-Litowsk, resembled the Black Knight character in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: He's obviously loosing but keeps fighting on and on and on until he has neither arms or legs. Then he says "All right, we'll call it a draw."

The Kaiser was poorly suited to lead. He sacked Bethmann at the insistence of the army, who gave him war with the United States and the odium of unrestricted submarine warfare that did not work. A strong leader would have sacked Ludendorff at the start of 1918 for advocating over the professional diplomats a failed naval strategy beyond his competence (seriously, what the heck did the GGS know about submarine warfare?) that lead straight to war with a Power that made defeat inevitable.
 
They are not surrendering everything. They are proposing a return to pre-war conditions in the west for a peace treaty/armistice that gives them a free hand to enforce the Brest-Litovsk terms however they desire.

I would think the best answer was the opposite. Rather than demand a free hand in the east, respond by inviting Wilson's delegation to come to Brest-Litovsk and negotiate the settlement with the delegations of Poles, Russians, Finns, (surprise!) etc. Wilson, ever the egoist, would overrate the strength of his hand, accept, and be bogged down in conflicting nationalist minutia in no time, with no treaty forthcoming in 1918.

In the west with Belgium and the French provinces, the answer is also pretty simple - if the Allies want an unconditional hand-over just so that they can use them as offensive bases for war into Germany, then they will have to take them house by house, with the area in rubble by the end of it. If the handover is only after an armistice is in place, then the area would be handed over intact.
 
The problem that everyone's eliding over I think is that Germany ended up collapsing, as are the Ottomans and Habsburgs. Sure, Russia's out of the game, but America's ramping up. Time isn't on Germany's side.
 
I agree with most of these elaborations for the 1918 conciliatory German offer

I agree. Given that what happened in 1917/18 in the East is a massive German strategic victory, it should be able to afford the Allies (and especially Wilson) a few treats:

-clear schedule for partial withdrawal of troops from France and Belgium after an armistice, and completely after the peace treaty Yup
-payment to Belgium (bot not France) for the damage done and the violation of neutrality Yup. Belgium was a "raped" innocent. However, I would also suggest Germany should be say it would be willing to consider some French claims as well. France suffered a lot from having the war fought on its soil
-offering a plebiscite in Alsace-Lorraine under neutral observation within 12 months Yup
-offering a fleet deal to Britain Yup
-giving up most of the colonies (I know it just means accepting the Facts) Actually here is where I think there could be future negotiations...both regarding their ultimate ownership and whether or not Germany might ask for some payment

-agreeing to some other of the fanciful 14 Points (no secret diplomacy, freedom of the seas and such) Sure, why not. Since unrestricted submarine warfare was a causus belli for the US, Germany could go one step farther...unilaterally scrap its U-boat fleet and offer to enter into a treaty to ban submarine warfare altogether. This was in fact something that Britain wanted at the OTL Washington Naval Treaty and Germany offering this might drive a wedge between Britain and France (who did not want submarines banned)

-and while we are at it, the Germans could also propose a federalization of Austria-Hungary and give Bolzano to Italy. Uh...Germany can only propose what Germany can deliver. The best Germany could offer would be to accept whatever terms the Allies and Austrians negotiate as part of their armistice/peace treaty.
 
With all your brilliant suggestions about what Germany should have offered, you still blind out that the Entente wouldn't negotiate.
They didn't negotiate in 1914, nor in 1915, nor in 1916, nor in 1917, nor in 1918, nor in 1919. But in 1919, they could eventually do what they had wanted from the start: dictate the terms.
 
With all your brilliant suggestions about what Germany should have offered, you still blind out that the Entente wouldn't negotiate.
They didn't negotiate in 1914, nor in 1915, nor in 1916, nor in 1917, nor in 1918, nor in 1919. But in 1919, they could eventually do what they had wanted from the start: dictate the terms.

Obviously, the Entente didn't realize how improbable their victory was.
 
Top