Negotiated End to WW1

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
I could see Luxembourg being annexed, but no other permanent border adjustments in the west. There may be parts of France and Belgium occupied (and likely plundered) by Germany for say 2 years post treaty.

I agree. Aside from Luxemburg, I think the most likely candidate for annexion would be the Arlon area, due to its Luxembourgish population. Some of Lorraine, Belgian Luxembourg and Liege might get a demilitarisation deal like the Rheinland, but I doubt a Saar-like arrangement would be made anywhere.
 
Yes those banks, private individuals and institutions holding French, Russian, Italian, and British bank notes and bonds will be SOL. They will have made a bad investment that hurts the US economy to a degree, but I doubt it will be much more than a mild recession. There is collateral for the defaulting British and French loans, so the banks won't lose their shirts because of those loans.

Also, I reckon that the former Entente will try to pay as much as they can back over the pond. Why? They want to remain being worthy of credit (especially Britain). Germany could try to default and weael itself out of its obligation in OTL because they knew from the first round, that they couldn't get any money internationally.


I can only underline every sentence. Thank you.
 
In the US there will be no Wilsonian war quasi-fascism, (arrests of dissidents, economic controls, etc.) The OTL "return to normalcy" of 1920 was a political rejection of Wilson's overreach. Absent US participation in WW I, US domestic politics will be changed, possibly a conservative like Coolidge versus a northern or mid-western Democrat with a challenge to both by a Progressive. Without the distortions of the war economy, the US will likely face a recession 1918-1920 for the reasons cited in previous posts, but will, unless an interventionist Congress takes control, will be a short one. Prosperity and development will likely extend more rapidly than OTL and last into the Thirties
 

The Sandman

Banned
Three questions.

First, what shape will Japan be in? Aside from the US, their competitors for influence in Asia are all pretty much broke now. Heck, they might even have gotten something out of their fellow Entente members in exchange for floating a loan or two once it became clear that US capital was gone. North Sakhalin, for example, or support of Japanese claims to Chinese territory.

Second, any chance that Germany offers to buy some colonies off its foes, or even buy some of its own colonies back at the peace treaty? It would help prevent France from immediately collapsing into revolution, since France would now have at least a small infusion of gold to pay their debts with. They also might go for taking the Belgian Congo in exchange for handing over German East Africa to the British; the former is frankly more valuable, and it allows the British to gain something tangible from the war (the Capetown-Cairo connection) without selling short von Lettow-Vorbeck. vLV is going to have an interesting career post-war, since he's going to be one of the few immediately recognizable names who can say something about honor and glory during the war and mean it.

Third, might the US accept European colonial possessions in the Western Hemisphere as payment for some of their debts? I could see Henry Ford encouraging the acquisition of the Guyanas (although the Dutch one would require actual negotiations, seeing as how the Dutch don't have any war debts), or American mineral concerns wanting the Jamaican bauxite deposits. And the Caribbean as even more of a US lake than OTL might have interesting consequences down the line.

I think that TTL's France isn't guaranteed to follow the same path as OTL's Germany, politically-speaking. To OTL Germany, WWI was a sudden crushing blow after the better part of a century where first Prussia and then the German Empire seemed to go from strength to strength. To TTL France, though, WWI is now the second time that France has been broken by German troops, a defeat which cost them Alsace-Lorraine, left much of the country's industrial plant and best farmland in ruins, and gutted an entire generation. While there are still going to be Frenchmen who think that they're sure to win next time, I'd expect there to be just as many (if not more) who feel that any "next time" would just end in an even more crushing defeat for the French.

As a minor matter, what would the situation be in the Aegean? I assume that the Ottomans are going to reclaim the Dodecanese, but would they also get the islands Greece took from them during the First Balkan War? And would the Bulgarians end up with Salonika, or just some minor adjustments of their Greek border?
 

Deleted member 1487

Also, I reckon that the former Entente will try to pay as much as they can back over the pond. Why? They want to remain being worthy of credit (especially Britain). Germany could try to default and weael itself out of its obligation in OTL because they knew from the first round, that they couldn't get any money internationally.

The Kaiserreich did pay back any US loans, small as they were quickly, and during the war (they were short term loans). I am not sure about the loans from the Dutch however. Now as far as the post war loans go, the Nazis did have a large part to do with the defaults and as those loans had to do with reparations payments and the Kaiserreich wouldn't owe debts to the US ITTL, I don't see how the Germans defaulting would be a factor here.
 
C.Cain-

Well yes, a war between Francce/Itay/Russia and Germany wouldn't be much of a world war, but if you take that logic, neither was the First World War (the fighting in the colonies was effectively pointless/irrelevant).

I do dispute that France wouldn't have an incentive to launch a second war, although it would be foolhardy (so was invading Russia without adequate winter gear for your troops:rolleyes:); Germany in OTL did not collapse into defeatism to use the obvious example. In fact, with a negoiated settlement, it will be even easier for the extremists on the left and right to say they've been stabbed in the back by the politicians and [insert easy to persecute and villanize ethnic/religious minority]. The nature of French politics before the war actually makes the rise of an extremist group seem very plausiable.

As for when the war actually starts, it very much depends how Germany has coped in the wars before the war. If they've played it relatively safe and not tried to be too thuggish, they can use their puppets in the east and central Europe to help turn the tide.

If they've been too rough (overthrowing governments that disagree them, imposing very high prices for German imports, supporting unpopular regimes etc...) then they could have very serious problems Another danger is that the army will stagnate as in OTL France and to a lesser extent, Britain. This could combine with a Neo-Entente blockade and make things very rough for the Germans. However, I do agree, that in the long run, only Russia is likely to get anything positive out of the war.
 
Hew Strachan presents the issues as Wilson realizing what was coming, but wanting to cut off loans before the US economy became even more dependent. It seems he was willing to take the short term hit to the economy to avoid a major one after US industry became even more addicted to war profits. As Mikestone mentioned in the other thread the US loaned only $2.2 Billion before they entered the war, leaving the majority of the +$9 Billion after the declaration of war by the US off the books ITTL. So the US won't have as drastic of effects as you outlined here, as the majority of the purchases were by this point (according to Mikestone again, though IIRC this is also what Strachan states in his book) food and cotton, with other incidentals occurring as well. Actual machined goods only really started appearing after 1917 (though unfilled shell casings and explosives were shipped before).

Yes those banks, private individuals and institutions holding French, Russian, Italian, and British bank notes and bonds will be SOL. They will have made a bad investment that hurts the US economy to a degree, but I doubt it will be much more than a mild recession. There is collateral for the defaulting British and French loans, so the banks won't lose their shirts because of those loans.

Now Germany, despite its large internal debt (government debt to private individuals) will find that these private individuals (industrialists and the like) will have lots of money from their war profits and will be hungry for American raw materials. So I don't know if the slump in orders will be all that bad once Germany can purchase from the US again.

Note that the US and all nations face a post war recession as the economies need to re-order themselves to peace time productions.

Michael
 
I do dispute that France wouldn't have an incentive to launch a second war, although it would be foolhardy (so was invading Russia without adequate winter gear for your troops); Germany in OTL did not collapse into defeatism to use the obvious example.

Germany in 1918. didnt lose twice to France in less then 50 years and didnt have a fair chunk of it occupied and/or turned into a battlefield in the last war. Remember, it wasnt German taxi drivers that drove troops to the outskirts of Berlin to fend off advancing Entente soldiers.

Another danger is that the army will stagnate as in OTL France and to a lesser extent, Britain.
Germany doesnt have the same situation as OTL France or Britain. As you said, it is still surrounded by potential threats, and WWI definately wasnt the war the Germans (or anyone) wanted to fight. I wouldnt bet on them staying in the WWI mindset.
 
Last edited:
The Kaiserreich did pay back any US loans, small as they were quickly, and during the war (they were short term loans).

Thank you for the information. I would say it underlines my point that it is to be expected that other powers would try their best to act the same way.


Now as far as the post war loans go, the Nazis did have a large part to do with the defaults and as those loans had to do with reparations payments and the Kaiserreich wouldn't owe debts to the US ITTL, I don't see how the Germans defaulting would be a factor here.

Oh, I was referring purely to OTL when it comes to Germany, especially up to 1923 (pre-Nazi). In the proposed scenario, ATL-Germany would not be in danger of defaulting.
 
the rise of communist groups in Italy, France and Russia would leave Germany still encircled by enemies. Germany would probably still defeat the three communist states but if it gets too greedy and tries to hold onto too much, then the Empire might start to fall apart in the 1930s from overstretch.

Would the "three communist states" ever get off the ground?

There's no way they can get to power in France or Italy without some kind of civil war - in which the Germans will surely intervene. So they most likely end up with "White" governments accepting German protection.
 
Last edited:
Would the "three communist states" evver get off the ground?

There's no way they can get to power in France or Italy without some kind of civil war - in which the Germans will surely intervene. So they most likely end up with "White" governments accepting German protection.

I agree. Communism is the big bogeyman. Not only Germany might intervene, but maybe Great Britain as well - or even the USA.

Besides, I wonder what such a situation would do to the French and Italian colonial empires!
 
Butterflying WWII is impossible IMO without getting rid of the first war as well or giving one of the sides an absurdly good peace.

Impossible? Really? I can think of several ways to prevent WWII with the preposed scenario.

The only likely scenario (...) is Britain/USA/Russia/Japan vs. Germany/most of Europe.

Does this scenario have any other justification except trying to build an anti-German coalition capable of defeating ITTL Germany?
 
I don't see Germany accept the loss of their colonies either.

This is an interesting issue. IMO no colonies cold only be beneficial to Germany in the long run, but there is a question how much the Germans are going to press for the return of their colonies at the peace table.
 
This is an interesting issue. IMO no colonies cold only be beneficial to Germany in the long run, but there is a question how much the Germans are going to press for the return of their colonies at the peace table.

I absolutely agree, but they'd not be smart enough to realize. Think of their "Mittelafrika"-dreams during WW1.

Though, having one small "model-colony" left, where massive investments show the British and French "how it is done properely" might be fun.:cool:
 
I absolutely agree, but they'd not be smart enough to realize. Think of their "Mittelafrika"-dreams during WW1.

AFAIK they werent complete imbeciles. Plans are good and all, but with a negotiated pece they can hardly demand anything resembling Mittelafrika.
 
AFAIK they werent complete imbeciles. Plans are good and all, but with a negotiated pece they can hardly demand anything resembling Mittelafrika.

That would obviously not have been on the table. What I simply wanted to point out is that the desire to grandly expand the German Colonial Empire shows that German leadership wouldn't have been able to see the loss of colonies as a blessing in disguise.
 
What I simply wanted to point out is that the desire to grandly expand the German Colonial Empire shows that German leadership wouldn't have been able to see the loss of colonies as a blessing in disguise.

Fair enough. Though their view on the matter was not what I had in mind; I meant not having to deal with colonies would be beneficial to Germany. I say this with hindsight, of course.
 
In the West the Germans avoid reparations for France and Britain, but have to pay Belgium. They also annex Luxembourg and get trade concessions with Belgium. There are minor border adjustments on the Franco-German border in Germany's favor. Germany loses her colonies and has some limits to her navy.

I find this a bit baffling. If Germany is in any position to impose annexation of some portion of the French, Belgian or Luxemburger homelands, how does it find itself forced to cede colonies or to curtail its naval growth?

Such a move would only be viable, IMHO, in a scenario where all parties come to the negotiating table trying to find a way out of the war, discarding any notion of victor and vanquished - and if they do why not settle for a return to the statu quo ante anyway, as annexations are bound to fuel resentment and precipitate another conflict?
 
I find this a bit baffling. If Germany is in any position to impose annexation of some portion of the French, Belgian or Luxemburger homelands, how does it find itself forced to cede colonies or to curtail its naval growth?

The realities on the field are that Germany holds big chunks of France, Belgium and the whole of Luxemburg, and yet has no hold on the high seas and Africa. Sure, the scenario isnt very probable, but it definately isnt inplausible. Of course, if wiking would explain his scenario in a bit more detail, we could discuss this on safer ground.
 
Top