Negotiated End to WW1

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

abc123

Banned
I know, but I don't think the Germans can trust the Luxembourgers to govern themselves, seeing as they are a conquered territory that did not want to be part of Germany. At least that is my impression, so if anyone has any other information about German plans for Luxembourg, please correct me.


Well, IMO, Germans would let Luxembourg to be one of german monarchies without any problem. After all, they are too small to cause any major problems.
;)
 
Last edited:

abc123

Banned
In a negotiated peace, outright annexations of the French mainland would be like a big "fuck you" to the Entente. I would think a demilitarised region and a Saar-like solution to Briey-Longwy would be (somewhat) better.

IMO, Germany wouldn't get anything from France in a negotiated peace. Maybe demilitarised zone ( but on both sides of fronties ).

East Africa is probably lost, since it is essential for the Cape-to-Cairo railway. You could partition it if you could find an agreeable solution for both the Germans and the British.

I agree.
Maybe partition so that British get west of 30 degrees area, and Germany has east of that meridian. ( Because of colonel Lettow ).

As for the colonies, you could be able to bring back Togo and Kamerun, and maybe even grab Benin, Neukamerun, Middle Congo and Gabon. Note that these are all French posessions, so you could arrange this as the Germans cashing in on every inch of French mainland they retreat from. Congo proper, being a Belgian colony, is probably out of the picture.

Not quite sure about that.
IMO Germany can be more then happy if getting ANY former colony back after Entente occupied them.
Also, they can serve as a way for paying war damage to Belgians and French.

About the navy, I can't see anything bigger than 50% of RN what UK would accept.
And IMO, without colonies and beieng a continental country, Germany doesnt needs more than that. Dominion navies must be also taken into account there.

AH and Germany as still trying to figure out how to handle Poland, as AH wants to turn it into a third crown (Kaiser Karl does at any rate, there are problems with that), but Falkenhayn doesn't allow the Kingdom of Poland to be created ITTL, so that issue isn't on the table.


IMO, creating of small Kingdom of Poland with Habsburg as a King, can be only a good thing for Germany.
They can say that they have liberated Poland from russian yoke, and please A-H letting Habsburg to take the trone in Poland ( and power of that Kingin Poland will be a pretty weak, after all, Poles never did like a strong king ).
;)
 
Not quite sure about that.
IMO Germany can be more then happy if getting ANY former colony back after Entente occupied them.
Also, they can serve as a way for paying war damage to Belgians and French.

Germany needs to be in a pretty bad poisition to be willing to concede anything to the French. And paying war damage to France (as opposed to Belgium) means German defeat. Otherwise, Germany will not agree.
 

Deleted member 1487

Quick reminder, the German offensive is the trump card here. They are threatening to use their manpower freed up from the East in a major offensive unless the Entente bows to certain demands. The French are afraid of being in an even worse negotiating position, so don't refuse.
Also remember that Germany is better off never having to deal with the Hindenburg program and the major social and economic dislocation that caused. There are also about 140,000 more men still in the army that were released in OTL during the Hindenburg program to work in factories that never were finished; here they will still be at the front and they were mostly 20-something prime soldier material men.

So just as the Entente is having to reduce its war effort, the Germans' is picking up significantly.
Guys

Most of the conditions being mentioned here are for a considerable German victory which isn't really on the cards. The allies are short of funds without America but can make use of internal funding like Germany did. They can also rely on access to world markets for selling goods so even if somewhat restricted they could continue on with the war. This I can see while Germany is insistent on such large gains.

Steve

Actually they cannot make use of internal funds like Germany because their economic systems were based on imports. Germany war forced to use its ample coal and steel reserves (captured, imported from Sweden, or internal), while the French had lost almost all of theirs in 1914 and needed to import it all, but not just that. They needed to import food, nitrates, rare metals like tungsten, oil, etc. All this had to come from the outside and required foreign currency to purchase. It was not forthcoming, as the drying up of loans and perception that the war was lost for them is dropping the exchange rate like a iron cannon ball. Britain is somewhat better off, but still needs to import food and many types of crucial metals, something she is not able to purchase now except with funds raised privately. Though I am sure that internally some funds can be raised, remember that Britain was having her own national and private banks loaning money to France and Russia this whole time and turned to America to supplement her financial might. However by 1917 it was tapped out and all her gold reserves were used up as collateral for American loans. No one is loaning Britain money and much of the private and public money has already been loaned. Direct taxation would cause a riot. So they can start printing money like Germany and Austria-Hungary, which allowed them to pay internal debtors, but this doesn't help them with external imports.

By 1917 both the French and British economies are not based on exporting consumer goods, they are geared up for war goods. They cannot flip a switch and start selling consumer goods to raise foreign capital, and even if they did, it would be private industry selling abroad, which doesn't mean the government can seize their profits for the war.
MikeStone8 suggested this article, which highlighted the situation nicely:
The Command of Gold Reversed: American Loans to Britain, 1915-1917
Author(s): John Milton Cooper, Jr.Source: Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 45, No. 2 (May, 1976), pp. 209-230
Hew Strachan talks about this issue at length in his book "To Arms" in the financing the war section.
 

abc123

Banned
Germany needs to be in a pretty bad poisition to be willing to concede anything to the French. And paying war damage to France (as opposed to Belgium) means German defeat. Otherwise, Germany will not agree.


Well, Entente must be in pretty dire position to accept any negotiated peace. They wanted defeat of Germany, not negotiated peace.
 

abc123

Banned
Quick reminder, the German offensive is the trump card here. They are threatening to use their manpower freed up from the East in a major offensive unless the Entente bows to certain demands. The French are afraid of being in an even worse negotiating position, so don't refuse.


But, I don't see Britain giving back german colonies, after all, Germany can't make them to do that, they maybe can force France to get back Togo and Cameroon and that's that.
So, eastern part od German East Africa and MAYBE Cameroon and Togo. ( even that is questionable, since they could be used to be sweeter for France to swallow bitter pilul of incorporating Luxembourg into Germany. )
Ruanda-Burundi to Belgians to pay for war damage.
 

Deleted member 1487

But, I don't see Britain giving back german colonies, after all, Germany can't make them to do that, they maybe can force France to get back Togo and Cameroon and that's that.
So, eastern part od German East Africa and MAYBE Cameroon and Togo. ( even that is questionable, since they could be used to be sweeter for France to swallow bitter pilul of incorporating Luxembourg into Germany. )
Ruanda-Burundi to Belgians to pay for war damage.

Germany is already paying reparations to Belgium here. Also it wasn't just the British that took German colonies. The French took Togo and were involved in taking Cameroon. Does France really care about Luxembourg? I think not, it really was only important to Germany and if the trade off is getting getting back a large swath of their country and countrymen.
 

abc123

Banned
Germany is already paying reparations to Belgium here. Also it wasn't just the British that took German colonies. The French took Togo and were involved in taking Cameroon. Does France really care about Luxembourg? I think not, it really was only important to Germany and if the trade off is getting getting back a large swath of their country and countrymen.


Well, only ITTL can France accept something like that.
Even so, Britain can't ( because of inter-Empire relations ) and won't ( because of Cape-Cairo railway ) get DSWA and at least western part of DEA back to Germany.
DNG is also out of question.
 

abc123

Banned
I can see demilitarisation of area about 50 km on each side of the border:
- German-Belgian border
- Luxembourg
- Alsace-Lorraine
- German-French border
 
I don't see any reason at all why the Germans are going to agree to this peace in you TTL. Their enemies are collapsing all around them, they look to be sitting pretty, so if they are going to agree to a peace its going to be a Brest-Litovsk style peace both East and West.

Based on this thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=177937
I wanted to have a discussion about what would happen after the war if the following peace, a peace of exhaustion, was signed.
POD: Romania doesn't enter the war in 1916, which means General Falkenhayn keeps his position as head of the German army. This is crucial, as he was not in favor of unrestricted submarine warfare, a military dictatorship and the economic plan of Hindenburg (which destroyed the German economy through mismanagement), and wanted peace in 1917 by negotiation.

Because he opposes unrestricted submarine warfare, he is able to find support from the German Kaiser and Chancellor, both of whom were strong-armed into agreement by Ludendorff OTL. Consequently the Zimmermann note is never sent and the US does not enter the war. Loans are cut off to the Entente as per OTL, but no liberty loans are raised to replace them. Britain maintains a slightly muted war effort, but her allies Russia, France, and Italy are dependent on British loans for their war efforts, which have dried up entirely. Without collateral and their bonds being rated as junk, there is little money coming in except through direct taxation, which can only be raised slightly without causing revolution.

After April 1917 the French war effort has wound down, both because of the mutinies, which here are much harder to placate without the Americans and morale boost them brought, as well as an inability to purchase food from the US and finance minor attacks to wear down the Germans (OTL after the Nivelle offensive the French attacked around Verdun very successfully, which boosted morale and hurt the Germans'. Also the successful Petain version of the Chemin des Dames cannot occur due to lack of funds and willingness of the French soldier to fight).

The Russian provisional government bows out of the war early, after the October Revolution, because of no Americans or loans, which causes Romania to occupy and annex Bessarbia. The Ottomans still make later efforts to occupy the Caucasus region as Russia falls into civil war.

Italy is attack at Caporetto as per OTL, though slightly earlier, which devastates them. However, with Russia knocked out of the war early, no Americans, and no loans, the Italian socialists and anti-war protestors revolt, causing the government to ask for a cease fire. This topples the French government, which reforms under Joseph Caillaux, who starts negotiations with the Germans. The British join in, as do the Italians.
The negotiations conclude under the threat of German offensive.

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. Italy loses minor territories to make the Austrian border more defensible. Italy also pays minor reparations for the war. Rump Serbia is united with Montenegro under the pro-Austrian Obrenovic's, who were deposed in 1903. In the East the Germans get Poland (still in negotiations with Austria-Hungary over the role each will play in that country)and the Baltic area. AH doesn't ask for anything, just food from Russia. The Bulgarians get to keep their conquests. Romania gets to keep Bessarbia. The Ottomans lose everything base on the December 1917 front line with the Brits. They try to take the Caucasus to compensate in 1918.

Important notes: there is no Brest-Litovsk, though the Russian Provisional government is fighting the Bolsheviks. There is no Bread Peace with the Ukrainians, which means the AHs are more stable in Galicia, having avoiding pissing off the Poles. AH is more stable than 1918 OTL, but the Hungarians and Austrians have the Ausgleich negotiations coming up and the Hungarians have large demands, including a separate army, which Kaiser Karl will not agree to. There are large numbers of returning to AH that have been exposed to Communism and are angry. Here they will not be asked to fight again, which pushed them over the edge, but in Hungary they have demands of nobility and are plotting assassinations of important figures like Tisza.

There is major inflation in Germany and AH, though not nearly as bad as the 1920's OTL version. A global depression has occurred as a result of the break down in trade and the consumer economy being turned into war economies in Europe. Germany has large gold reserves and is owed money by her allies, but they can't really pay and Germany owes the Netherlands for loans and trade. The nation never goes through the dictatorship of Hindenburg and Ludendorff, both of whom are lionized and claim they could have won total victory. Political violence does occur, but it is limited. A broad section of society wants the Kaiser replaced with the Crown Prince. Many want a constitution with limited authority for the monarch.

France is completely broke and owes major money to the US. This is backed by collateral, but with a devastated country, no reparations, and no ability to raise further loans France is economically crippled. Taxation can only provide so much money, which further exacerbates tensions in the country. Large scale death and what all view as a loss causes political violence verging on civil war. Caillaux is assassinated in 1918.

Italy is also smashed, having gained nothing but civil unrest, which tumbles into civil war, as angry soldiers and civilians take out their rage on their leaders.

AH is devastated with communists planning violence, inflation and debt sap the economy, various national groups have demands for the peace, and all sides have weapons and trained soldiers to fight for them. The Czechs are in a bad place due to the behavior of their soldiers during the war and the Czech legion, meaning many of their potential soldiers/leaders are exiled.

Russia is in civil war, but the Germans are not involved yet, just providing captured Russian weapons and munitions to the Whites. Britain is aiding them too. Fighting in the Baltics is starting, as returning Baltic soldiers, who were fighting for Russia, try to return home. Finland has also revolted and is now independent, but is fighting a civil war aided by the Germans. The Ottomans invade the Caucasus in May with the army of Islam.

Britain is also massively in debt, mainly to the US, as she took out loans for her allies to get them a lower borrowing rate, but they are unable to pay these loans back. Angry soldiers are returning and violence in India and Ireland are picking up.

With this scenario how will the peace play out???
 

abc123

Banned
I don't see any reason at all why the Germans are going to agree to this peace in you TTL. Their enemies are collapsing all around them, they look to be sitting pretty, so if they are going to agree to a peace its going to be a Brest-Litovsk style peace both East and West.

Two things.

1) danger of US involment

2) need to sort out things on east and to grab as much they can in the east while they still can

;)
 
Quick reminder, the German offensive is the trump card here. They are threatening to use their manpower freed up from the East in a major offensive unless the Entente bows to certain demands. The French are afraid of being in an even worse negotiating position, so don't refuse.

Possibly or possibly they realise how fragile the German position is. If the Germans start making huge demands on France I can see them deciding to fight on even if they believe they will lose.

Also remember that Germany is better off never having to deal with the Hindenburg program and the major social and economic dislocation that caused. There are also about 140,000 more men still in the army that were released in OTL during the Hindenburg program to work in factories that never were finished; here they will still be at the front and they were mostly 20-something prime soldier material men.

So just as the Entente is having to reduce its war effort, the Germans' is picking up significantly.

The Hindenburg programme did cause a lot of social damage but without it does Germany have the arms and munitions for those men?


Actually they cannot make use of internal funds like Germany because their economic systems were based on imports. Germany war forced to use its ample coal and steel reserves (captured, imported from Sweden, or internal), while the French had lost almost all of theirs in 1914 and needed to import it all, but not just that. They needed to import food, nitrates, rare metals like tungsten, oil, etc. All this had to come from the outside and required foreign currency to purchase. It was not forthcoming, as the drying up of loans and perception that the war was lost for them is dropping the exchange rate like a iron cannon ball. Britain is somewhat better off, but still needs to import food and many types of crucial metals, something she is not able to purchase now except with funds raised privately. Though I am sure that internally some funds can be raised, remember that Britain was having her own national and private banks loaning money to France and Russia this whole time and turned to America to supplement her financial might. However by 1917 it was tapped out and all her gold reserves were used up as collateral for American loans. No one is loaning Britain money and much of the private and public money has already been loaned. Direct taxation would cause a riot. So they can start printing money like Germany and Austria-Hungary, which allowed them to pay internal debtors, but this doesn't help them with external imports.

By 1917 both the French and British economies are not based on exporting consumer goods, they are geared up for war goods. They cannot flip a switch and start selling consumer goods to raise foreign capital, and even if they did, it would be private industry selling abroad, which doesn't mean the government can seize their profits for the war.
MikeStone8 suggested this article, which highlighted the situation nicely:
The Command of Gold Reversed: American Loans to Britain, 1915-1917
Author(s): John Milton Cooper, Jr.Source: Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 45, No. 2 (May, 1976), pp. 209-230
Hew Strachan talks about this issue at length in his book "To Arms" in the financing the war section.

Confused here?:confused: Germany had to produce virtually everything internally because of the blockade but it still had to pay for them. The entente powers had access to world markets and hence could use them, not just for loans and imported war materials to supplement the vast quantities they were making themselves but to sell home and colonial goods. In terms of raw materials the empires also gave captive resources while I believe that as in WWII the dominions were willing to supply goods on very favourable terms. However that is for the non-military materials that the home countries couldn't supply themselves. Funding the purchases by internal loans would be possible as in Germany. In fact giving more control for the issue rather than sticking with laisse-faire attitudes would probably both make available a lot of resources and ease social concerns about the black-marketers and war-profits some businesses were making.

Steve
 

Deleted member 1487

Possibly or possibly they realise how fragile the German position is. If the Germans start making huge demands on France I can see them deciding to fight on even if they believe they will lose.
That is a possibility. Much depends on who takes over after the Caporetto in France; historically it was Clemenceau, but here without the US, their loans, and the earlier exit of Russia, Caillaux will most likely get the nod and enter negotiations. He was pretty much willing to concede a lot for peace IIRC.


The Hindenburg programme did cause a lot of social damage but without it does Germany have the arms and munitions for those men?

Not only that, but it resulted in the massive misallocation of resources that could not be replaced. To make matters worse the coerce labor laws that would essentially make labor an arm of the army, which contrasted Falkenhayn's position of siding with labor in just any disputes with industry to prevent strikes, caused massive strikes, which caused massive shortages of critical resources like coal, which further exacerbated the tight supply, causing transportation issues that meant food could not get to the cities as necessary. The Turnip winter of 1916-1917 was partly the result of this.

Large numbers of factories were built that could not be supplied with raw materials, so in effect they were a waste of the materials and labor to construct them while taking experienced men from the army as they were most needed. The use of these resources could have kept existing factories supplies for much longer than historically, perhaps well into 1919. Preventing the labor laws, which only appealed to industry and alienated labor, causing massive riots that crippled the German economy, would have save Germany a lot of dislocation and avoided agitating the public unduly.

There was also the delicate balance the War Ministry kept with producing explosive materials, which, because they used nitrates, competed directly with agriculture for fertilizers. When the Hindenburg plan just created an arbitrary expansion plan for explosive material production, the War Ministry was no longer able to balance food and weapons, causing food to come directly out of German mouths. But then the way the increases were handled, there was no actual increase beyond what Falkenhayn's War Ministry had planned anyway. In effect any material increases that Hindenburg-Ludendorff realized after taking power was inspite of their efforts, not because of them. In fact, it is much more likely that had Falkenhayn's war economy been maintained and allowed to ramp up production gradually based on carefully matriculated schedules, then Germany would have had significantly more weapons, materials, and manpower for the front than what they possessed historically.
http://books.google.com/books?id=HT...&resnum=8&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false
This book goes through this issue in a nice chapter.


Confused here?:confused: Germany had to produce virtually everything internally because of the blockade but it still had to pay for them. The entente powers had access to world markets and hence could use them, not just for loans and imported war materials to supplement the vast quantities they were making themselves but to sell home and colonial goods. In terms of raw materials the empires also gave captive resources while I believe that as in WWII the dominions were willing to supply goods on very favourable terms. However that is for the non-military materials that the home countries couldn't supply themselves. Funding the purchases by internal loans would be possible as in Germany. In fact giving more control for the issue rather than sticking with laisse-faire attitudes would probably both make available a lot of resources and ease social concerns about the black-marketers and war-profits some businesses were making.

This is a trickier subject. Germany had enough natural resources under control that the blockade was only partly effective. She had enough coal, steel, and, thanks to science, nitrates to run war effort. Granted Germany was missing important resources that would enhance and allow her to fight more effectively, but she had the basics at home that would allow her to maintain a war effort.
France had none of these after 1914 because her resources (90%) were seized by the Germans, meaning they had to import all the resources from other countries to allow their industry to function. Imports were not a luxury for France, but a necessity without which she could not produce war goods and fight.

Also France had been cash strapped from the beginning and had been using up her own financial resources while taking out loans. By 1917 she had exhausted her own internal financial resources and could no longer finance it herself. This is why after US entry into the war the Entente debt went from 2 billion (pre US entry) to over 9 billion (April 1917-November 1918). Without loans France can no longer buy good abroad because her currency was not worth as much and internal loans and bonds were no longer available to raise as they were rated as junk. If France were just buying things internally she wouldn't have as much a problem financing her war effort by printing money, but she cannot; France MUST purchase abroad, because otherwise she cannot obtain the good needed to fight the war. Germany was able to print money and import a minor part of her effort because she had most of what she needed at home.

The situation was significantly better for Britain, but in some ways worse. She too had been funding the war internally and supplementing it with external loans, but to a far less degree than her allies. In fact, her financial rating was so good that she had borrowed just about everything from the US and reloaned it to her allies, because Britain could get money at a better rate. France and Britain had both been selling government bonds internally and abroad, but they were getting tapped out, especially as their bonds were losing ratings as their war position deteriorated.
Britain however had much greater resources such as coal and metals at home and greater financial resources to be able to sustain her in war. As Mikestone stated in the thread this one is based on, Britain would be able to maintain her war effort with minimal cutbacks.

But the problem is not Britain, its France. France was utterly dependent on Britain for funding now and cannot raise it abroad. Sure there was some residual money to float her along and a reduced rate at home, but this wasn't enough to maintain the war effort through 1918. Britain would have to reduce her war effort significantly to keep her ally France in the field. However, both France and Britain would be operating at a much reduced capacity in 1917-1918, which means Germany would probably be able to equal if not exceed them in war materials on the ground come 1918. Remember Britain is fighting in the Middle East in a major effort and on the Western Front, not to mention both France and Britain have a major army in the Balkans. Germany now just has the Western Front and isn't bogged down trying to occupy all of Eastern Europe ITTL.

Now the other issue is that Germany was not a democracy during WW1. France and Britain were. They had much lower tolerance for the kind of controls that Germany had over the economy and if the British and French tried to do what Germany did with her economy there would be major civil unrest and a compromised war effort as the public no longer supported the government. Nearly unlimited foreign money allowed France and Britain to get away with their more free and somewhat wasteful (in comparison) war economy, but this was crucial to maintaining morale and obedience at home. Even OTL there were important issues with labor and the socialists in both France and Britain that would explode if either nation took the kind of controls Germany did over her economy and labor. Even Germans did react with strikes and political strife when harsh measures were enacted at home.
 

abc123

Banned
Germany now just has the Western Front and isn't bogged down trying to occupy all of Eastern Europe ITTL.


Yes, but occupation of Ukraine was a nescessity because of shortage of food, Caucasus was important because of oil, and Belarus and Baltic because of protecting flanks of Ukraine.
;)
 

Deleted member 1487

Yes, but occupation of Ukraine was a nescessity because of shortage of food, Caucasus was important because of oil, and Belarus and Baltic because of protecting flanks of Ukraine.
;)
Except nothing of the above came from the occupation, just wasted resources and manpower. Germany didn't even want it except to pressure the Bolsheviks to quit. Here that is not an issue and Germany can demobilize its least fit soldiers from the East to work the fields
 
I know, but I don't think the Germans can trust the Luxembourgers to govern themselves, seeing as they are a conquered territory that did not want to be part of Germany. At least that is my impression, so if anyone has any other information about German plans for Luxembourg, please correct me.

That reminds me a bit of Bavaria. Just kidding.

On Luxemburg: the Grand Duchy had already been a part of the German Zollverein, i.e. in a trade- and customs union with Germany prior to 1914. Also, the Grand Duchess (who was only 24 years old by 1918) was seen as rather Pro-German during the war - which OTL led to her forced abdication in 1919. On top of that, she was rather eager to meddle in Government affairs instead of letting the elected bodies simply do their thing and stand aside.

From a German point of view, this makes incorporating Luxemburg as another monarchy (annexation would not be the used term here, except for Entente propaganda) a lot more appealing than creating another Reichsland, deposing the ruling friendly dynasty and paving the way to quasi-republican rule (see the Reform of 1911 in Elsaß-Lothringen).

---

On the OP: I understand the military situation as such that Germany (and alongside, its allies) still seems to be on the winning side or at least very stable whereas the Entente situation worsens to a degree in which gambling for victory appears riskier by the day. On the German side, unlike OTL, there would be politicians smart enough to realize that finding a way out with only moderate gains and some concessions would also be more promising than a gamble on total victory.

I understand the term "negotiated peace" not as a status-quo-ante peace (there would be little negotiation to make clear what that is) and, in the given situation above, not as a "peace without victors". IF both sides go to the negotiating table with Belgium almost completely occupied, Russia broken down in revolution, the Frontlines deep within France, Italy demoralized, Serbia conquered while the only significant CP losses occured outside of Europe (mainly in regions - the German colonies - which actually don't matter at all), nobody would buy the idea of Germany not having won the Great War. But the peace will be negotiated in so far as it won't be dictated. No Brest-Litovsk (not even in the East). No Versailles. No fulfillment of the German dreams of complete Continental hegemony, not even in the initial stages of negotiations. The French will have to offer Germany something in order to get them off their ground. If Germany has an interest in having colonies returned to them, they will have to play very nice. Other nations will be in completely uncomfortable situations: the Ottomans, Italy, Belgium, probably also the Russian Government.

One more thing - I estimate that any involved Government which had been at the negotiation table and quit in order to go on with the fun of destroying Europe would face severe problems to enforce the continuation of the war.

I also cannot see a mutual demilitarization on the Franco-German border. The peace would still be negotiated in an atmosphere of complete distrust. Also, it would mean giving up the precious fortresses for both sides. There will be a detailed timetable for gradual German withdrawal with delayed French/Belgian re-occupation. I can see Austria-Hungary trying to enforce military restrictions in Venetia.
 
It seems to me that what this argument really points up is the immense difficulty of ever getting a compromise peace, because, as the late AJP Taylor put it "What was compromise for one side represented defeat for the other".

For the Germans, handing back 90% of their valuable conquests in France, Belgium etc in return, at best, for the recovery of some not very valuable colonies, would have looked like a disastrous failure - an immense sacrifice having been made in vain. For the Allies, OTOH, having to let Germany keep much of her conquests, while paying a price, in cash or colonial territory, for the evacuatiion of the rest, would have been taken as giving in to Germany. Neither side would accept the other's idea of compromise until they saw themselves clearly losing - and then it would be too late for compromise.
 
It seems to me that what this argument really points up is the immense difficulty of ever getting a compromise peace, because, as the late AJP Taylor put it "What was compromise for one side represented defeat for the other".

There is an "easy" way to force both sides to the negotiating table: make the war last a bit longer then wiking`s 1917. deadline. Social upheaval should do the rest.
 

Deleted member 1487

There is an "easy" way to force both sides to the negotiating table: make the war last a bit longer then wiking`s 1917. deadline. Social upheaval should do the rest.
Perhaps it would take until the Germans launch a version of the 'peace offensive' ITTL, pushing the war in 1918, but making German gains greater in the post war, while tearing up France worse.
 
Top