Too far back. Why not have TR winning again in 1912, then? He would have entered war in August 1914.
Not that I think it will make any difference if Champ Clark becomes president. American industrialists are drooling at the idea of supplying arms, steel, food, whatever to warring Europe, and changing president will not change their mind. Or their political clout.
It is a well known fact that industrialists always get what they want at the level of national policy.
Yeah, Deutschland uber Alles. In reality, I'm convinced that Germany really wanted to dominate Europe economically.
IMHO, there are two ways to decide what Germany will take post a major victory over France. In one way, we can look at what the Germans, in particular German leaders, said they wanted. In another, we can argue what a rational social democratic, trade oriented German leadership would take. The former seems to be more likely, since you or I did not lead Germany in 1914-1918, but rather its relevant Chancellors and by the end Hindenburg and Ludendorff. Also, to dominate Europe economically involved, so far as the German leadership believed, dominating Europe politically too.
Usually the best way to do that is not to make all the other guys into your sworn enemy.
Germany would not do this post war at all. We see this by the peace treaty Germany forced on France after the Franco-Prussian War, and by Brest-Litovsk, both of which established equitable borders to avoid future conflict and establish harmony between nations on an economic basis. Right?
I'd forget the Channel coast and the partition of Belgium. Destruction of the border fortifications and creating a de-militarised zone is fair.
Y'see, the victorious Reich is not interested in what is "fair". Back to Brest-Litovsk, the Ukraine, the Baltics, Finland, parts of transcaucasus, and much of Belarus was not "fair".
Minor rectifications of the French border, same. Possibly even Luxembourg. Lots of central africa: I'm quite doubtful, not when they get lots of eastern Europe at the same time.
Germany fought for its place in the sun. As near as I can tell your argument is that it'll back off wanting said place in sun because it wouldn't be fair. Who ends up leading Germany in this TL: Woodrow Wilson?
You also argue that the Germany will want few colonies in Africa, and will take none if it get them. You argue elsewhere that Germany was no worse than the UK and France. Oddly enough, you seem to argue here that Britain and France were worse than Germany, since both nations (and Japan and the dominions) were quite happy to relieve Germany of the burden of all of its colonies postwar.
Brest Litovsk was a stupid treaty (same as Versailles was);
Therefore it, and Versailles, did not happen at all. Because they were stupid. And how was Brest Litovsk "stupid"? Pushing the Russian frontier back to more less the borders of ethnic Russia, assembling a ring of puppet states, and accessing lots of economic and agricultural resources =! stupid. It doesn't equal nice either, but there you have it.
the only justification is that it came in late 1917, when the military was running the show.
Because the military would not be running the show by the 1916 onward if the end result is a CP victory in the war.
As Talleyrand said to Napoleon: "Bayonets are wonderful, just don't try to sit on them".
And Napoleon listened to him, which is why Europe speaks French.
Wilhelmine Germany was no better and no worse than the other continental states of the period. The colonial urge will be redirected to the east.
Like, this really doesn't make any sense. Germany wasn't led by Woodrow Wilson. Bethmann-Hollweg was the moderate, and he wanted hella more than your Wilsonian Germany wants.
This is a caricature of the 2nd reich, taken from Allied propaganda of the time: "Stop the Huns". All nations were "expansionistic", "bullying", imperialistic in a word. Germany is not Russia, it is an advanced industrial nation, with a strong social-democratic party. The Kaiser is not completely reduced to the status of constitutional monarch; at the same time it is not an entre-acte to introduce the Nazi party. I would agree that the more the war is protracted (and 1917 might be already late), the more the infamous duo will run the show.
There are two extremes to view the Reich as. The first is that it was evil, scary, and a precursor to the Nazis. The second was that it was almost a happy near social democracy, like Britain and France, only more so. You seem to have the second view. The reality was somewhere in between.
F'rex, "the Huns" as a term came from Kaiser Willy, the German attrocities in Belgium alleged by the allies did not all occur, but many of them did. Germany, as you point out, was run by the generals by the mid-to-late war. Britain and France, which you say were no worse, were, like not.
"It is an advanced industrial nation, with a strong social-democratic party"=! the social democrats ran the show, any more than it did in did elsewhere. By mid war and earlier Germany sought to dominate the continent in a way the UK and France couldn't and wouldn't. The Germans tore up international treaties, which the UK didn't.
Remember, critically, Germany is *not* a status quo power. It wante a much more powerfull role than it had and viewed the status quo as blocking its place in the sun. There is no reason to think that it would back down on its war aims. Why won't Germany impose a harsh peace on France if its army is quartered in Paris?
Also, "All nations were "expansionistic", "bullying", imperialistic in a word." does not mean that all were equally "expansionistic" and "bullying".
"In 1914-1918 Germany = the UK and/or France" is just as untrue as "In 1914-1918 Germany = Nazi Germany".
But again: generals are usually the worse persons to win the peace (and often enough they are also the worse persons to win the war).
Sure. But the argument that "generals pursue bad policies" != they won't pursue them.
In any case, you cannot just wave a hand and have "France broken, Italy humbled and Russia pushed back hundreds of miles [it was just 150 as the outcome of the ill-thought Kerenski offensive in 1917, btw]".
And somewhat further as of the land given up at Brest Litovsk. Is your argument here that France can't be broken in war? It seems to me that they sorta can be. it has happened before, and came close to happening OTL.
When Falkhenhaym attacked Verdun in 1916, it was not exactly a success; in 1917 there were no major German offensives on the western front; even Caporetto - which was a tactical success - ultimately failed, since the Austro-Germans were unable to force the crossing of the Piave; operation Michael did not achieve a single one of its objectives.
Are you arguing that Germany can't win the war? If so, this seems to upset this thread at a fairly radical level. Also, arguing that lots of the war was a a deadlock on the Western Front doesn't mean that the Germans can't win it. By said logic, it would be impossible for the allies to win the war since "when France attacked the frontiers in 1914, it was not exactly a success, in 1915-1917 there were no major victorious Franco-British offensives on the western front; the battles of the Isonzo were not tactical success- and (insert most allied attacks on the western front) did not achieve a single one of their objectives"
Summary:
You seem to spend your post arguing a rational nice Wilsonian Germany would let France, the UK et all up easy, in order to forge a happy shiny peace. This is cool, and probably would be wise. Germany was not, however, run by angelic and logical beings, but rather by a militaristic leadership that did stupid and arrogant things on a regular basis. For example, assembling a coalition of more or less every major nation in the world against it, while yoked to not one but two corpses (Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans) as allies was not a smart thing to do. Deciding to build a massive short range battle fleet capable of sinking the RN and nothing else was not a smart thing to do. Drawing Britain into the war rather than concentrating on defeating Russia was not a smart and rational thing to do. You get the idea.
OBWI: Wilsonian Germany? Woodrow Wilson wakes up as every major German leader on 1/1/1917. What next?
