Negotiated End to WW1

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
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.

Perhaps. Interestingly enough, if this "peace offensive" puts everyone at the negotiating table, in the minds of Europeans this negotiated peace would be indistinguishable from a German victory.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Perhaps. Interestingly enough, if this "peace offensive" puts everyone at the negotiating table, in the minds of Europeans this negotiated peace would be indistinguuishable from a German victory.
It'd be interesting to see how Wilson reacts to the Entente losing during negotiations. Even Falkenhayn would want to exact a crippling revenge if forced to launch the final offensive, which would probably smash France. They might have the capability to stand up to the Germans, but almost certainly not the will or morale.
 
It'd be interesting to see how Wilson reacts to the Entente losing during negotiations. Even Falkenhayn would want to exact a crippling revenge if forced to launch the final offensive, which would probably smash France. They might have the capability to stand up to the Germans, but almost certainly not the will or morale.

Well, this scenario goes beyond "negotiated peace" and lands right into "German victory", so keeping with the spirit of the thread, it should be discarded. I agree that France would, even in a negotiated peace, react as if they were defeated, but that goes a long way from it actually being defeated.
 
I could see this as more realistic

Luxembourg to Germany, but nothing else, except maybe a DMZ in France. I can't see the French negotiating away their own territory unless they lose Paris. The Germans are scared of US involvement, and will take a tiny victory. Maybe have a threat of the US getting involved lead Germany to ask for negotiated peace, instead of outright US DOW?

Germany pays concesssions to Belgium for violating neutrality- maybe in the form of one of the overseas colonies. No other reparations period.

France gets another colony in exchange for something.

Italy/AH I think would be status quo ante bellum. Italy potentially goes commie.

Poland gets formed out of Russian/Austrian territories as a 3rd crown to AH, Austria forms into a Triple Monarchy, and jettisons off some Balkan lands- which fall under Ottoman influence (is Ataturk butterflied by this?)
 
Last edited:
Poland gets formed out of Russian/Austrian territories as a 3rd crown to AH, Austria forms into a Triple Monarchy, and jettisons off some Balkan lands- which fall under Ottoman influence (is Ataturk butterflied by this?)

How is Austria-Hungary giving up on its Balkan posessions and the Ottomans getting an infuence sphere over them in any way realistic?
 
The Germans are scared of US involvement, and will take a tiny victory. Maybe have a threat of the US getting involved lead Germany to ask for negotiated peace, instead of outright US DOW?

What? With the conditions in the PoD, the chances of America entering the war is next to nothing. Honestly people, read the OP.
 

Deleted member 1487

So assuming that the Germans launch their 1918 "Peace Offensives", which here are probably different than OTL, because Ludendorff and Falkenhayn had different priorities, command styles, and understanding of the strategic and operational levels of warfare, the French would probably fold for morale and greater German focus on vulnerable points in the Entente lines. Ludendorff expected tactical success would equal strategic victory, while Falkenhayn was fixated on the strategic goals.

For example OTL Falkenhayn wanted to launch an offensive in 1915 to disrupt Entente logistic hub at Doullens, thus dismantling their ability to supply their forces north of the city; Ludendorff launched his attack in 1918 without realizing the value of Ameins as a logistic hub that could potentially collapse Entente positions. Both sought to fight in the exact same area, but Falkenhayn wanted to limit the goal to the capabilities of his army while achieving a specific effect, however Ludendorff famously stated: "we shall tear a hole (in their lines) and the rest will follow. That is how we did it in the East", meaning he was expecting a tactical success to produce victory over the Entente.
 
I could see this as more realistic

Luxembourg to Germany, but nothing else, except maybe a DMZ in France. I can't see the French negotiating away their own territory unless they lose Paris. The Germans are scared of US involvement, and will take a tiny victory. Maybe have a threat of the US getting involved lead Germany to ask for negotiated peace, instead of outright US DOW?

Germany pays concesssions to Belgium for violating neutrality- maybe in the form of one of the overseas colonies. No other reparations period.

France gets another colony in exchange for something.

Italy/AH I think would be status quo ante bellum.

Poland gets formed out of Russian/Austrian territories as a 3rd crown to AH, Austria forms into a Triple Monarchy, and jettisons off some Balkan lands- which fall under Ottoman influence (is Ataturk butterflied by this?)

As a general outline, this looks not unlikely to me as to reference to Germany. Although I doubt the wisdom of incorporating Poland into the Danube Monarchy, I have to accept that there were desires of that kind in Vienna.

That brings me to another point. Now I am the first to scream nonsense if someone postulates an unlikely takeover or premature break-up of Austria-Hungary on behalf of creating "Grossdeutschland" in such a scenario. But I do not see much acceptance in Germany for a peace, where Germany wins....very.....little but loses a handful of colonies whereas Austria-Hungary gets a jackpot price. Additionally, take into account the slightly disappointing military performance of the k.k.-forces.

Now Germany would probably get quite a slice of Poland on its borders, and maybe Kurland or Lithuania, but that still wouldn't suffice.

I therefore rather suggest that a peace in the East would entail:
- the kingdom of Poland, as established by the end of 1916, with a king from a German dynasty. The Wettiner, for historical reasons, would be a choice coming directly to mind, though the Habsburg family had suitable candidates who spoke fluent Polish. If there is more wisdom, give them to a Habsburg sideline and add (Western-)Galicia to it. And don't let Germany annex anything.
- if Austria-Hungary gives territories to Poland, they should be compensated by partitioning Serbia along with all its neighbours (accomplices won't hurt and ease the burden). With all the difficultires entailed when it comes to changing the 1867-construction; maybe they create a third crown but base it not in Belgrade, but in Agram or, if there is a sense of irony, Sarajevo. The complete war guilt is of course put on Serbia...
- Montenegro becomes one of the nice small funny european principalities with a lot of tourists and letterboxes. They should do well in decades to come.
- There is simpy no place for Ottoman influence on the Balkans. First of all, there is too much German and Austrian interest for the region. Secondly, Bulgaria, Turkey's direct neighbour, has been a member of the Central Powers will probably make gains- at least in Serbia. Greece and Romania will also continue to exist and lose little territory, if anything. Last but not least, Turkey will just like the other nations have enough troubles on its own; or be occupied with sorting out its relation to whatever is happening in the Southernmost parts of the Russian Empire (in case it doesn't stand unharmed).
 

Very good points here. I'd add the whole of Galicia to Poland, though.

Considering Austrian gains: letting them have Serbia is a standard proposal in AH - but is it really sensible to make that land an integral part of your country you had the most problems with? I'd rather have Serbia as a puppet, after redistributing parts of it to Bulgaria and Albania just to weaken Serbia.

An interesting idea would be if AH gains Romania (maybe plus parts of Bessarabia) and makes Romania a third crown after partition of Transylvania between Hungary and Romania. The whole exchange then eliminates the Poles and Ukrainians from AH and makes the Germans, the Hungarians (plus Croats) and the Romanians the core people, greatly improving the balance of minorities. And it provides great strategical gains with the whole Danube and the Ploesti oil in AH hands.

Question is, though, whether this could be achieved by negotiation...
 
As a general outline, this looks not unlikely to me as to reference to Germany. Although I doubt the wisdom of incorporating Poland into the Danube Monarchy, I have to accept that there were desires of that kind in Vienna.

That brings me to another point. Now I am the first to scream nonsense if someone postulates an unlikely takeover or premature break-up of Austria-Hungary on behalf of creating "Grossdeutschland" in such a scenario. But I do not see much acceptance in Germany for a peace, where Germany wins....very.....little but loses a handful of colonies whereas Austria-Hungary gets a jackpot price. Additionally, take into account the slightly disappointing military performance of the k.k.-forces.

Now Germany would probably get quite a slice of Poland on its borders, and maybe Kurland or Lithuania, but that still wouldn't suffice.

I therefore rather suggest that a peace in the East would entail:
- the kingdom of Poland, as established by the end of 1916, with a king from a German dynasty. The Wettiner, for historical reasons, would be a choice coming directly to mind, though the Habsburg family had suitable candidates who spoke fluent Polish. If there is more wisdom, give them to a Habsburg sideline and add (Western-)Galicia to it. And don't let Germany annex anything.
- if Austria-Hungary gives territories to Poland, they should be compensated by partitioning Serbia along with all its neighbours (accomplices won't hurt and ease the burden). With all the difficultires entailed when it comes to changing the 1867-construction; maybe they create a third crown but base it not in Belgrade, but in Agram or, if there is a sense of irony, Sarajevo. The complete war guilt is of course put on Serbia...
- Montenegro becomes one of the nice small funny european principalities with a lot of tourists and letterboxes. They should do well in decades to come.
- There is simpy no place for Ottoman influence on the Balkans. First of all, there is too much German and Austrian interest for the region. Secondly, Bulgaria, Turkey's direct neighbour, has been a member of the Central Powers will probably make gains- at least in Serbia. Greece and Romania will also continue to exist and lose little territory, if anything. Last but not least, Turkey will just like the other nations have enough troubles on its own; or be occupied with sorting out its relation to whatever is happening in the Southernmost parts of the Russian Empire (in case it doesn't stand unharmed).

Yeah, those are quite fair points. I had worries along those lines myself.
Maybe the Germans get some French colonies or compensation in exchange for not eviscerating France territorially? I could see the French having a demilitarized zone enforced.

Your scenario makes a little more sense. My thinking was that the Austrians would want no more Serb problem, and I"m not sure they'd actually want the land. Ottomans would want some war spoils also.

I can see Bulgaria and the Ottomans divvying up the Balkans, maybe with Austrian minor concessions to Bulgaria so they would be a viable buffer state, and it being unpleasant for the wrong minorities.

I do think some US influence would be needed to get the Germans to accept reasonable terms. I think the US would want peace and may try to broker it if they fear British loan default, especially if the Germans sink a US ship by mistake even with restricted warfare. Even with collateral, I do think the US would fear default enough to at least try to negotiate peace. Wilson would probably go for that, and I don't think the American voters would hate it politically, especially if there is a recession and a risk defaults would make it worse.
 
I can see Bulgaria and the Ottomans divvying up the Balkans, maybe with Austrian minor concessions to Bulgaria so they would be a viable buffer state, and it being unpleasant for the wrong minorities.

The Ottomans gaining land on the Balkan implies that the Bulgarians loose their mediterranean coast - rather unlikely IMHO. What I could imagine is Albania gaining Kosovo and becoming an Ottoman vassal/client/friend. Overall, the Ottomans will be quite lucky if they regain their Arabian provinces and maybe add some land in the Caucasus. They'll never regain Egypt as well.
 
Very good points here. I'd add the whole of Galicia to Poland, though.

That would let Austria-Hungary get rid of a few nationalities. However, the Polish were quite calm, politically. Cisleithania might soon miss them.

Considering Austrian gains: letting them have Serbia is a standard proposal in AH - but is it really sensible to make that land an integral part of your country you had the most problems with? I'd rather have Serbia as a puppet, after redistributing parts of it to Bulgaria and Albania just to weaken Serbia.

My thinking was that the Austrians would want no more Serb problem, and I"m not sure they'd actually want the land.

I am divided on this topic. You are absolutely right, although I am not sure if they wouldn't try to pull off an annexation. The motivation wouldn't be expansion in itself, but rather to end Serbian irredentism. Serbia can rather easily be made a scapegoat to exculpate ALL the great powers. It would fit in well on a map, so to say. And if you have the ability to turn the Croatian crown into a 3rd one, you can end up with one of the typical AH situations where one nationality is placated (and occupied) with dominating another one (Italians->Croats in Küstenland, Polish->Ruthenes,Ukrainians in Galicia, Hungarians->Romanians,Slovaks in Transleithania), i.e. we would basically have a kind of reversed Yugoslavia as part of Austria-Hungary, just with the Serbs on bottom instead of on top.

An interesting idea would be if AH gains Romania (maybe plus parts of Bessarabia) and makes Romania a third crown after partition of Transylvania between Hungary and Romania. The whole exchange then eliminates the Poles and Ukrainians from AH and makes the Germans, the Hungarians (plus Croats) and the Romanians the core people, greatly improving the balance of minorities. And it provides great strategical gains with the whole Danube and the Ploesti oil in AH hands. Question is, though, whether this could be achieved by negotiation...

Romania was on the Austrian list...and it is tempting to rule almost the whole Danube...

But as you said, we talk about a negotiated peace and I think that Serbia is the maximum Austria can push through for annexation. I don't remember clearly, but was Romania even belligerent in this scenario?


Yeah, those are quite fair points. I had worries along those lines myself.
Maybe the Germans get some French colonies or compensation in exchange for not eviscerating France territorially? I could see the French having a demilitarized zone enforced.

I think you are right here, although I would put it slightly differently. The demilitarized zone would rather mean a slow-paced German withdrawal. We have to bear in mind, it is a negotiated peace without a clear defeat of either side, but with occupying Northern France is the one big bonus point Germany has on its hands. They won't be gone in four weeks time. I imagine a long timetable...

And considering the colonies, I would rather talk about handing the Germans back their lost ones, in that case Cameroon and Togo.

Ottomans would want some war spoils also. I can see Bulgaria and the Ottomans divvying up the Balkans, maybe with Austrian minor concessions to Bulgaria so they would be a viable buffer state, and it being unpleasant for the wrong minorities.

That is their problem. I am quite sure that in such a scenario they will end up as the dissatisfied winner, a bit like OTL-Italy. An Ottoman comeback in Europe
is something nobody would support; and where would the Ottomans go? An enlarged Albanian puppet, as recently suggested, might make sense. They might get to try regaining Aegean islands from Italy and Crete.
With the Arabian regions, the problem is similar to the German colonies. The CP will have problems to challenge the British position there. And if they get to agree with Britain that they withdraw to Egypt and Kuwait, you can be sure that Arab nationalism will be well-supplied with weapons once the British left...

The interesting question is whether the situation permits to give them compensation in the Russian empire.

I do think some US influence would be needed to get the Germans to accept reasonable terms. I think the US would want peace and may try to broker it if they fear British loan default, especially if the Germans sink a US ship by mistake even with restricted warfare. Even with collateral, I do think the US would fear default enough to at least try to negotiate peace. Wilson would probably go for that, and I don't think the American voters would hate it politically, especially if there is a recession and a risk defaults would make it worse.

Very good idea, and I think the scenario allows for a comparatively large amount of German good will.
 
Perhaps. Interestingly enough, if this "peace offensive" puts everyone at the negotiating table, in the minds of Europeans this negotiated peace would be indistinguishable from a German victory.

machine3589

That would only be if Wiking was right that such an offensive would break France. I'm not so sure of that because as it was OTL the allies defeated the German 1918 offensive largely without American involvement. This time around, without American support the allies will be weaker economically but they can still cut their huge military production somewhat to enable exports without affecting their military superiority in equipment over the Germans. Also, if the Germans are still determined on a clear and decisive victory with draconian terms as a result the allies have every reason to continue fighting hard. They will still have enough men and equipment to stop the Germans and if necessary can pull in forces from elsewhere. This might then lead to a negotiated peace but it's highly unlikely to be an unbalanced one with German forces in Paris.

Steve
 
machine3589

That would only be if Wiking was right that such an offensive would break France. I'm not so sure of that because as it was OTL the allies defeated the German 1918 offensive largely without American involvement. This time around, without American support the allies will be weaker economically but they can still cut their huge military production somewhat to enable exports without affecting their military superiority in equipment over the Germans. Also, if the Germans are still determined on a clear and decisive victory with draconian terms as a result the allies have every reason to continue fighting hard. They will still have enough men and equipment to stop the Germans and if necessary can pull in forces from elsewhere. This might then lead to a negotiated peace but it's highly unlikely to be an unbalanced one with German forces in Paris.

Steve

What are you going on about? If the Germans break France, it is a German victory. What I simply stated was if the Entente is forced to the negotiating table by the German offensive, then you would have a very hard time convincing Europeans (not their leaders) that the Germans didnt win.
 
Last edited:
Wiking, you're forgetting it's WORLD WAR ONE before the tanks. Every major offensive in these circumstances before the tank was just more meat grinder action without movement of the front. Presumably, you chose the negotiations' timing to come before the tank was worked out, right, so you must be aware of this.
 
What are you going on about? If the Germans break France, it is a German victory. What I simply stated was if the Entente is forced to the negotiating table by the German offensive, then you would have a very hard time convincing Europeans (not their leaders) that the Germans didnt win.

machine3589

:confused: Wiking was referring to a peace offensive breaking France. True if that happens and Russia is also out and America not in that is a German victory. I was simply saying I think this is pretty damned unlikely.

Steve
 

Deleted member 1487

Wiking, you're forgetting it's WORLD WAR ONE before the tanks. Every major offensive in these circumstances before the tank was just more meat grinder action without movement of the front. Presumably, you chose the negotiations' timing to come before the tank was worked out, right, so you must be aware of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Offensive
OTL Germany achieved the greatest penetration of the Western Front of any side during WW1 in 1918. The subsequent Allied advance was only possible because movement had been restored to the battlefield and the Americans had 2 million men in France to take advantage of the situation.

Fact is that without the psychological advantage of the US presence and the financial support of the US banks (close to $7 Billion after US entry in the war in April 1917. This was at that time's currency value, which is ~$1.5 trillion in today's dollars. It was also the vast majority of money that the Entente received from the US), the French would have folded in 1918. According to http://www.amazon.com/Pyrrhic-Victory-French-Strategy-Operations/dp/0674027264
, which is the best book on the French war effort in English, the French even OTL nearly collapsed politically as the Germans broke the French lines after already launching several against the British. Only the knowledge that the US army was coming kept them in the war.

Here that won't be an option and Falkenhayn is likely to focus on the French first. However, he won't go after purely tactical victories like Ludendorff, which was the point of my previous post, but strategic targets that would have forced the French out of the war.

ITTL the situation is not that of OTL 1918; there the French could not lose so long as they waited. Here they don't have the Americans coming to the rescue, all they have is the knowledge that they will have to pay in blood to reclaim everything the Germans have conquered, but don't have the manpower left to do so. Even OTL the French in November 1918 were physically incapable of taking the offensive again, as they were down to the last 1.5 million soldiers available to the nation; there were no reinforcements left. Here they won't have the US to make up the deficit. Also they won't have the tanks, trucks, airplanes, artillery, or shells of OTL because of lack of US money.

As to the claim that the Entente could just sell war goods to raise money...who would buy them?
 
Wiking, you had the single most plausible WWI ATL I've seen, and now you want to spoil it?

Sometimes I think there's some curse on the war making everybody want to play fantasy. Even the big historian Tuchman got it wrong, refusing to think some could've been evil. Communism was, of course, ASB; Fascism was old, proved inferior dictatorship coming for another round.

Did the glorious Spring Advance manage to advance a whole mile, at the cost of all that blood? Short of the whole French government being parked there and stupid enough to stay, HTF could it've won the war? And, hmm, it was then reversed JUST LIKE WHEN THE WESTERN ENTENTE WERE SO STUPID. Such an unheard of result - NOT.

The guns could fire fast enough since ACW there was no hope of enough unarmored soldiers making it to the other side to make enough difference. Well, except places that couldn't make or distribute bullets fast enough. Though my Russian grandad was given plenty of bullets; they just happened to be wrong for his gun.
 
machine3589

:confused: Wiking was referring to a peace offensive breaking France. True if that happens and Russia is also out and America not in that is a German victory. I was simply saying I think this is pretty damned unlikely.

Steve

I repeat, what I was saying was that if France is forced to the negotiating table by the German offensive rather then broken as wiking predicts, then people will still see it as a German victory even to this day. I wasnt saying it was definately going to happen or anything.
 
Last edited:
I repeat, what I was saying was that if France is forced to the negotiating table by the German offensive rather then broken as wiking predicts, then people will still see it as a German victory even to this day. I wasnt saying it was definately going to happen or anything.

machine3589

Ah. It was unclear from what you said that you were referring to something other than Germany breaking France. I see what you meant now is somewhat different.

Steve
 
Top