Prince Sixtus negotiates end of World War I

Shortly before Germany restarted unrestricted submatine warfare, a relative of the new Austrian Emperor initiated peace feelers from Switzerland and got farther than expected before being given a polite 'no' from the Allies. Had he been able to get an actual summit going, and assuming it forms the basis of a peace, what is the outcome and what does Europe look like a generation later?
 
1920s recession hits, another world war likely occurs by the 1940s, but what the alliances are will depend on interwar geopolitics.
 
1920s recession hits, another world war likely occurs by the 1940s, but what the alliances are will depend on interwar geopolitics.

Recession pretty surely occurs in 1920's but WW2 is not unavoidable so it is very possible that there is not second ground on 1940's. Even in OTL WW2 could had avoided even after Versailles.
 
Recession pretty surely occurs in 1920's but WW2 is not unavoidable so it is very possible that there is not second ground on 1940's. Even in OTL WW2 could had avoided even after Versailles.
My feeling is that WW1 was driven by building-up geopolitical tension. Versailes resolved this tension. In case of a peace, that tension would stay in place...and it probably could not be broken without another world war of some sort...
 
Interesting question. At that point i think its too late for Russia and the revolution will come. Likely during the peace talks and that will weaken russia's postion greatly.

Ibteresting question is if talks are acompanied by armistice. Because once the horror stops it will be very hard to get the people to start it again in a few weeks - so there would be strong incentive for peace on both side at that point.

With Russia weakened and the USA not in I think the peace would favour the CP's - especially in the east.
 
Shortly before Germany restarted unrestricted submatine warfare, a relative of the new Austrian Emperor initiated peace feelers from Switzerland and got farther than expected before being given a polite 'no' from the Allies. Had he been able to get an actual summit going, and assuming it forms the basis of a peace, what is the outcome and what does Europe look like a generation later?

The problem with Sixtus proposal was the generosity with the things owned by others like promising A-L back to France and Constantinople to the Russian, but at usual A-H was adamant in not giving up an inch of his territory...and this was what doomed the proposal as Paris and London can't leave their allies with empty hand expecially with Germany still needed to be beatean.
 
Well yeah. It was poorly designed to avoid the creation of new strands of geopolitical tension.

My feeling is that WW1 was driven by building-up geopolitical tension. Versailes resolved this tension. In case of a peace, that tension would stay in place...and it probably could not be broken without another world war of some sort...

New strands? I'd argue that WW I and WW II (at least in Europe, with the Asian theatre built on a similar but indeed newer problem). "The Germany Problem"; namely how the European order was going to integrate the historically-sudden formation of a new, populous, industrial and military superpower without displacing the vital interests/status and feelings of security in the existing hegemons to the point they feel the need to respond in a threatening way, which leads to a downward spiral. The same thing happened in a way with Napoleon. Prior to WW 1, the 2nd Age of Imperialism and restraint of Bismarck and other key statesmen allowed these moves to be played out by carving out the rest of the world to maintain some semblance of balance of power and allow nations to negotiate through tensions without actually having to sacrifice anything themselves, but by 1914 the world was getting too crowded both colonially and economically for that to work anymore.
 
New strands? I'd argue that WW I and WW II (at least in Europe, with the Asian theatre built on a similar but indeed newer problem). "The Germany Problem"; namely how the European order was going to integrate the historically-sudden formation of a new, populous, industrial and military superpower without displacing the vital interests/status and feelings of security in the existing hegemons to the point they feel the need to respond in a threatening way, which leads to a downward spiral. The same thing happened in a way with Napoleon. Prior to WW 1, the 2nd Age of Imperialism and restraint of Bismarck and other key statesmen allowed these moves to be played out by carving out the rest of the world to maintain some semblance of balance of power and allow nations to negotiate through tensions without actually having to sacrifice anything themselves, but by 1914 the world was getting too crowded both colonially and economically for that to work anymore.
True, there was the a lot of similarities, but they were still different. For instance, the Ottoman Question was settled once for all in WW1, and the Japanese Question was not even present in WW1.
 
Top