Our Treaty of Versailles

[Glen]

@Glenn: by the way don't forget Luxembourg was in complete constitutional turmoil in 1918-19, with attempted Socialist revolution and contestation of Grand-Duchess Adelaïde which eventually led to her exile and replacement by Grand-Duchess Charlotte. I don't think they would have been able to articulate anything consistent at the Peace Conference. Besides, national feeling was still very moot at the time.

Good point. But would they have signed the treaty with that proviso? Maybe they just take the land and don't ratify the treaty (the US didn't, after all). Would Belgium or France enter Luxembourg to enforce demilitarization? I think not. Belgium was a mess after the war, and France would look pretty bad in the eyes of the international community, especially the UK.

 

[LordKalvan]

Dalmatia, and control over Albania (I think the Italian prince on the Albanian throne would have satisfied them AND been acceptable to the Albanians)...really, that's about it. Oh, and Istria, which they eventually got OTL IIRC,but had to sorta take...

The main Italian problem is not to have a too strong Yugoslavia on their Eastern border: IMHO, it would not do to get rid of A-H (which after all had a stabilised border with Italy, and was not nurturing any revanchist idea about Veneto) with a nationalist Serb-dominated state, which would look toward Dalmatia, Istria and Trieste as "south-slavic" territories.

The second issue was the control of the Adriatic: the keys to this are Lissa and a protectorate over Albania (btw, the Saseno island - off Valona in Albania was an Italian navy base). I think that once these three objectives are gained, there would not be too strong an opposition in granting an Adriatic port to Serbia (Ragusa/Dubrovnik would be the best one), provided that Montenegro stays independent (with an Italian guarantee).

 

[benedict XVII]

Good point. But would they have signed the treaty with that proviso? Maybe they just take the land and don't ratify the treaty (the US didn't, after all). Would Belgium or France enter Luxembourg to enforce demilitarization? I think not. Belgium was a mess after the war, and France would look pretty bad in the eyes of the international community, especially the UK.

You could play with the idea of not granting the aggrandizement if they don't agree, as Luxembourg will need Belgium and France to enforce its claims on the Eastern territories anyway. You could even float the idea of joining them back to Belgium if they refuse, which was seriously considered OTL. In the end, whether Luxembourg signs the treaty or not does not matter that much, as long as all the powers agree to the provisions. I am much less convinced than you about the strength of Luxembourgish national feelings at the time. There had also been a Prussian garrison in the fortress of Luxembourg-city all the way up to 1867 without this creating much issue amongst the local populations. Finally, IIRC, there were already French troops in Luxembourg at the time...

Why are you saying Belgium was a mess after the war? Economy was ravaged obviously, but it maintained very stable institutions and had quite a decent army.

 

[benedict XVII]

The main Italian problem is not to have a too strong Yugoslavia on their Eastern border: IMHO, it would not do to get rid of A-H (which after all had a stabilised border with Italy, and was not nurturing any revanchist idea about Veneto) with a nationalist Serb-dominated state, which would look toward Dalmatia, Istria and Trieste as "south-slavic" territories.

The second issue was the control of the Adriatic: the keys to this are Lissa and a protectorate over Albania (btw, the Saseno island - off Valona in Albania was an Italian navy base). I think that once these three objectives are gained, there would not be too strong an opposition in granting an Adriatic port to Serbia (Ragusa/Dubrovnik would be the best one), provided that Montenegro stays independent (with an Italian guarantee).

I don't see the Italians giving up on Ragusa: large Italian population, historical prestige. Can you create a new harbor somewhere? Would not be the first attempt in history.

 

[Glen]

The main Italian problem is not to have a too strong Yugoslavia on their Eastern border: IMHO, it would not do to get rid of A-H (which after all had a stabilised border with Italy, and was not nurturing any revanchist idea about Veneto) with a nationalist Serb-dominated state, which would look toward Dalmatia, Istria and Trieste as "south-slavic" territories.

Unfortunately for them, A-H broke up and the future Yugoslavia was already taking shape.

There might be conflict in future between Yugoslavia and Italy with Dalmatia in the hands of Italy. Then again, there WAS conflict between Yugoslavia and Italy when Dalmatia was not, so its not guarantee either way.

The second issue was the control of the Adriatic: the keys to this are Lissa and a protectorate over Albania (btw, the Saseno island - off Valona in Albania was an Italian navy base). I think that once these three objectives are gained, there would not be too strong an opposition in granting an Adriatic port to Serbia (Ragusa/Dubrovnik would be the best one), provided that Montenegro stays independent (with an Italian guarantee).

Overall true, I think. Paris could probably force the return of independence to Montenegro, given it was under somewhat shady circumstances and the Serbs still aren't that strong.

 

[LordKalvan]

Apparently they already did that by January 1919. It doesn't last OTL, but the Entente might be able to bolster it if they acted quickly enough to recognize it, especially if they forbade Weimar from interfering in its internal affairs. However, I really think we need to get some Entente troops there (even a token force might do) for 'stability'..

That would certainly help. OTL, there were Italian troops occupying Tyrol; they might also be deployed in Southern Bavaria, to "show the flag". I'd think that it would be best to have British (and not French) troops in the Palatinate and North-west Bavaria: less controversial.

I'm kinda with you there, just don't think it will fly. Maybe I'm wrong..

Probably you are right: politicians are usually short-sighted and vindictive.

Actually, what they need are strong Eastern European countries, not necessarily Germanies. They need Finland, the Baltics, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania to be strong against the Communists. And if possible, they need to preserve Byelarus and Ukraine against the Red Army as well..

All true, but at the same time it would be a bit dangerous to have a balkanised Germany at their back. At the same time, it would increase the appetites of Poland and would deny strategic depth. Byelarus and Ukraine would be great, but the latter was in danger from Poland, in first place. And I do not see a true chance of holding them (see below).

I think the idea of sending the 'extra' Central Powers troops to Byelarus and the Ukraine, even Russia, to help fight the communists might be a way to do this.

There are a couple of issues here: ex-Central Powers troops were quite tired after 4 years of war. I am not so sure there would have been a lot of takers (even if Frei Korps were quite active in the Baltic area after the armistice, and in Germany too); who is going to pay for this imperial police action? The Entente is not exactly cash-flush at the end of the war; in any case these troops should not have a German or Austrian flavor (otherwise it looks like a continuation of Brest-Litovsk situation). It would be a very good idea, though. Maybe it might be implemented under the name of the Society of Nations: a kind of International Foreign Legion, to be used to promote social stability and avoid the suffering of civilians [very noble ]. It would require a significant change in the mood of the Entente governments, and, as I said before, substantial cash allocations.

 

[Glen]

You could play with the idea of not granting the aggrandizement if they don't agree, as Luxembourg will need Belgium and France to enforce its claims on the Eastern territories anyway. You could even float the idea of joining them back to Belgium if they refuse, which was seriously considered OTL. In the end, whether Luxembourg signs the treaty or not does not matter that much, as long as all the powers agree to the provisions. I am much less convinced than you about the strength of Luxembourgish national feelings at the time. There had also been a Prussian garrison in the fortress of Luxembourg-city all the way up to 1867 without this creating much issue amongst the local populations. Finally, IIRC, there were already French troops in Luxembourg at the time...

In the end, I dislike the demilitarization of Luxembourg and see it serving no practical purpose, and indeed, it conflicts with your previous statement that having a larger Luxembourg might slow down the German advance enough to have significance in a war...this wouldn't be true if they were demilitarized, would it? And Germany doesn't care if Luxembourg is demilitarized...its France they are worried about and compare themselves to, not tiny Luxembourg.

Why are you saying Belgium was a mess after the war? Economy was ravaged obviously, but it maintained very stable institutions and had quite a decent army.

I meant Economic, and war damage.

 

[Glen]

Okay, I looked up Luxembourg during WWI.

Apparently, the government was seen as collaborationist during the occupation by Germany, and the Belgians pressed their claim to Luxembourg at Paris, a conference at which Luxembourg was not in attendence.

This does seem to indicate that Paris could likely have imposed a lot of what they wished on Luxembourg.

Why don't we go whole hog and take the traditional parts of Luxembourg AND give the whole of Luxembourg to Belgium. It would make for a better defensive position for that region.

 

[LordKalvan]

The Brits worked quite hard to leave as small a piece of German East Africa to the Belgians as they could, in spite of the heavy Belgian war contribution over there. It was seen as critical as bringing the missing link from Cairo to Capetown... Italians in Tanganyika would have also made Italy too powerful in East Africa and potentially endangered the position of Kenya

OTOH, Togo or maybe even Cameroon...

Quite true: Tanganyka would never have been given away by the British. Cameroon would be ok, I think.

Italian expectations in Anatolia were real, same as the British and French expectations too. Not to mention the Greek ones .
I'd say again what I posted a couple of days ago: the best overall solution for the Entente is not to destroy the Ottoman empire. Keep it alive, under the tutelage of the Powers: there is not a lot to be gained in Syria, Palestine or Anatolia. The only really attractive pieces of real estate are the oil wells in Mosul and the Bosphorus straits. The economic advantages would be there for the taking in any case: an open-door policy would allow the victors to make their profits in any case. Give the non-Turkish nationalities self-governing rights, under the ottoman umbrella and overall sovereignity. No squabble, and if there are problems, ottoman troops would intervene to put down civil disturbances. Garrisoning rights for the Powers in the Bosphorus forts, with guarantees of free passage. the Greeks would have to accept the self-government in Smyrna and the Pontus region rather than an enosis, but their expectations were well beyond their capabilities. The afore-mentioned League-of-nations troops might be used in the Caucasus

 

[Othniel]

I thought we were onyl doing Versailles, which only applied to Germany, not the treaties that applied to Bulgaria, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire as well.

 

[Nicole]

I would definately not give Luxembourg away.

 

[Glen]

I would definately not give Luxembourg away.

Why wouldn't you?

 

[Glen]

I thought we were onyl doing Versailles, which only applied to Germany, not the treaties that applied to Bulgaria, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire as well.

Not really. We started out with the 'Treaty of Versailles' as the name, but really we are talking about our version of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. These Treaties really don't make as much sense in isolation.

 

[Glen]

Okay, my attempt at another map.

This one has the existing Bavarian Republic preserved, the dysfunctional and often run over Luxembourg given to Belgium, a freed Montenegro, a trimmed Czechoslovakia (no one was seriously suggesting two independent states at this point, and I don't think it is of benefit to separate them at this point), a Hungary that gets a few more of the edges of its Hungarian population, and a Ruthenia that goes with the Polish-Lithuanian-etc Federation.

The Sudetenland doesn't go with Czechoslovakia, but is instead partitioned among Austria, Bavaria, and Germany, giving Germanic populations to 'Germanic' nations, but splitting it so there isn't such an encirclement of this side of Czechoslovakia by any one nation.

Bavaria is stubborn enough that it might want to stay separate. With Bavaria between Austria and Germany, it will be a harder sell for Anschluss in future. A loose economic bloc of the Germanic nations would be more likely I think, with both Germany and Austria courting Bavaria to be in a stronger union with them first. True, all three could go for reunification at some point, but this makes it a more complicated thing to do, with three governments instead of two.

 

[Nicole]

Why wouldn't you?

Because they weren't a Central Power or an active military power against the Allies. Wiping them off the map because the Grand Duchess made nice with the Germans seems incredibly harsh.

 

[LordKalvan]

I don't see the Italians giving up on Ragusa: large Italian population, historical prestige. Can you create a new harbor somewhere? Would not be the first attempt in history.

I've been unable to find the ethnical composition of Ragusa pre-WW1.
Historically, it separated from Venice very early on, and thereafter was mostly independent, or a vassal to Hungary and later to the Ottomans until it was reconquered by A-H at the end of 17th century. The port is quite good btw. I suppose that if Yugoslavia must have a sea port, it is the best choice (Spalato was more Italian, for example - not to mention Zara or Fiume)

 

[LordKalvan]

I don't see the Italians giving up on Ragusa: large Italian population, historical prestige. Can you create a new harbor somewhere? Would not be the first attempt in history.

I've been unable to find the ethnical composition of Ragusa pre-WW1.
Historically, it separated from Venice very early on, and thereafter was mostly independent, or a vassal to Hungary and later to the Ottomans until it was reconquered by A-H at the end of 17th century. The port is quite good btw. I suppose that if Yugoslavia must have a sea port, it is the best choice (Spalato was more Italian, for example - not to mention Zara or Fiume)

 

[Wendell]

Okay, my attempt at another map.

This one has the existing Bavarian Republic preserved, the dysfunctional and often run over Luxembourg given to Belgium, a freed Montenegro, a trimmed Czechoslovakia (no one was seriously suggesting two independent states at this point, and I don't think it is of benefit to separate them at this point), a Hungary that gets a few more of the edges of its Hungarian population, and a Ruthenia that goes with the Polish-Lithuanian-etc Federation.

The Sudetenland doesn't go with Czechoslovakia, but is instead partitioned among Austria, Bavaria, and Germany, giving Germanic populations to 'Germanic' nations, but splitting it so there isn't such an encirclement of this side of Czechoslovakia by any one nation.

Bavaria is stubborn enough that it might want to stay separate. With Bavaria between Austria and Germany, it will be a harder sell for Anschluss in future. A loose economic bloc of the Germanic nations would be more likely I think, with both Germany and Austria courting Bavaria to be in a stronger union with them first. True, all three could go for reunification at some point, but this makes it a more complicated thing to do, with three governments instead of two.

I like this map better, but I wonder if this would alter the colonial situation...

 

[luakel]

Okay, my attempt at another map.

This one has the existing Bavarian Republic preserved, the dysfunctional and often run over Luxembourg given to Belgium, a freed Montenegro, a trimmed Czechoslovakia (no one was seriously suggesting two independent states at this point, and I don't think it is of benefit to separate them at this point), a Hungary that gets a few more of the edges of its Hungarian population, and a Ruthenia that goes with the Polish-Lithuanian-etc Federation.

The Sudetenland doesn't go with Czechoslovakia, but is instead partitioned among Austria, Bavaria, and Germany, giving Germanic populations to 'Germanic' nations, but splitting it so there isn't such an encirclement of this side of Czechoslovakia by any one nation.

Bavaria is stubborn enough that it might want to stay separate. With Bavaria between Austria and Germany, it will be a harder sell for Anschluss in future. A loose economic bloc of the Germanic nations would be more likely I think, with both Germany and Austria courting Bavaria to be in a stronger union with them first. True, all three could go for reunification at some point, but this makes it a more complicated thing to do, with three governments instead of two.

I'm against Bavaria, the Polish Ruthenia, and (very much) the Luxembourg giveaway.

 

[Andrei]

I'm also against the independence of Bavaria. One of the reasons which led to WWII was that the Germans were forced to live in two states that wanted to unite ( Austria really wanted to unite with Germany in 1919 ) and that large German territories were given to other countries ( West Prussia , Sudetenland ).
That's how Hitler gained popular support , by getting back German territories.