Too Big To Swallow - The Treaty of Versailles in a Central Powers Victory

It has often been said that Britain had no choice to pursue an alliance with France and Russia (her longtime rivals across the globe) because the creation of Germany upset the balance of power and the one thing Britain could not tolerate was a German Empire which dominated Europe (and very particularly the Low Countries). Therefore dreams of some-kind of Anglo-German alliance founder, perhaps even without the German obsession with the naval arms race.

So far so sensible I have always thought. But then I got to thinking about what a Treaty of Versailles would look like in a world where the Central Powers won because (i) Britain stayed out of WWI and (ii) where Britain backed the Central Powers over its long term rivals?

Would Germany seek territorial concessions or economic hegemony over the Benelux countries? Knowing it would anger Britain and perhaps too (and more importantly) Germany might be trying to swallow too much at once: taking huge swathes of former Russian territory in the east and trying to incorporate it into a German sphere.

I have really good sources for Entente post-war planning but is any one familiar with German (or Austrian or Ottoman) post war planning? How would that be affected by a neutral or allied Britain? Discuss.

Really I am wondering what mileage there is in encouraging Germany to swallow Poland, the Baltic States, etc etc, some French colonies (Indochina for example), more French contiguous territory, Luxemburg perhaps...and then watch it choke...? Ridiculous, unfathomable risk I know but what would be the consequences of a greedy post-victory Germany?
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Aims of the Septemberprogramm, which was drafted early in the war:

wikipedia said:
-France should cede some northern territory, such as steel-producing Briey and a coastal strip running from Dunkirk to Boulogne-sur-Mer, to Belgium or Germany. A war indemnity of 10 billion Reichsmarks for France, with further payments to cover veterans' funds and to pay off all Germany's existing national debt, should prevent French rearmament. The French economy would be dependent on Germany and all trade with the British Empire will cease. France will partially disarm by demolishing its northern forts.
-Belgium should be annexed to Germany or, preferably, become a "vassal state", which should cede eastern parts and possibly Antwerp to Germany and give Germany military and naval bases.
Luxembourg should become a member state of the German Empire.
-Creation of a Mitteleuropa economic association dominated by Germany but ostensibly egalitarian. Members would include newly created buffer states carved out of the Russian Empire's west such as Poland, which would remain under German sovereignty "for all time".[4]
-Expansion of the German colonial empire with, most importantly, the creation of a contiguous German colony across central Africa (Mittelafrika) at the expense of the French and Belgian colonies. Presumably leaving the option open for future negotiations with Britain, no British colonies were to be taken, but Britain's "intolerable hegemony"[citation needed] in world affairs was to end.
-The Netherlands should be brought into a closer relationship to Germany while avoiding any semblance of force.

Allohistorical map from the alternatehistory.com wiki, depicting the various war aims:

aoww1.png


I hope this helps you. Also some information on the Ukrainian State.

I know it's not exactly what you want, but it'll provide a good jumping off point for evolving the Central Powers overall plans.
 

Deleted member 1487

It has often been said that Britain had no choice to pursue an alliance with France and Russia (her longtime rivals across the globe) because the creation of Germany upset the balance of power and the one thing Britain could not tolerate was a German Empire which dominated Europe (and very particularly the Low Countries). Therefore dreams of some-kind of Anglo-German alliance founder, perhaps even without the German obsession with the naval arms race.
The problem with the Anglo-German alliance was not Germany it was Britain. The Naval Arms race was conceived of by the Royal Navy as a propaganda tool to increase their own funding; their construction of the Dreadnought was really the cause, not German naval construction; that ended in 1912 anyway after Germany tried to sign a naval treaty with Britain, but was rebuffed and they didn't create any new naval laws anyway.

Britain also refused when Germany offered them a treat of alliance in 1901 they wanted a Entente Cordial without concrete commitments, which Germany would not accept. Ultimately Britain refused to be tied down. So when the war started in 1914 Britain had a clique of anti-German politicians at the top of the power structure that were determined to go to war if Germany moved West and probably would have tried to enter even if Germany turned East; the moment Germany looked ready to beat France and occupy Belgium Britain was ready to fight.

The only way to keep Britain out of the war is abandon the Schlieffen Plan in 1914 and only DoW Russia, which opens up a lot of butterflies and a worse war for Germany in the long run. France would have joined in anyway and done some damage near the border. That treaty that ends the war ITTL wouldn't be at Versailles and the war would be so radically different that you'd need to lay out the course war and how the conflict ends to tell you what the treaty would look like.
 
The problem with the Anglo-German alliance was not Germany it was Britain. The Naval Arms race was conceived of by the Royal Navy as a propaganda tool to increase their own funding; their construction of the Dreadnought was really the cause, not German naval construction; that ended in 1912 anyway after Germany tried to sign a naval treaty with Britain, but was rebuffed and they didn't create any new naval laws anyway.

Britain also refused when Germany offered them a treat of alliance in 1901 they wanted a Entente Cordial without concrete commitments, which Germany would not accept. Ultimately Britain refused to be tied down. So when the war started in 1914 Britain had a clique of anti-German politicians at the top of the power structure that were determined to go to war if Germany moved West and probably would have tried to enter even if Germany turned East; the moment Germany looked ready to beat France and occupy Belgium Britain was ready to fight.

The only way to keep Britain out of the war is abandon the Schlieffen Plan in 1914 and only DoW Russia, which opens up a lot of butterflies and a worse war for Germany in the long run. France would have joined in anyway and done some damage near the border. That treaty that ends the war ITTL wouldn't be at Versailles and the war would be so radically different that you'd need to lay out the course war and how the conflict ends to tell you what the treaty would look like.

That's the first time I've heard the RN blamed for the naval race - have you got any sources for that I can delve into?
 

Deleted member 1487

That's the first time I've heard the RN blamed for the naval race - have you got any sources for that I can delve into?
Its all about framing and the English wrote the english language history of the conflict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_naval_arms_race
The German aim was to build a fleet that would be 2/3 the size of the British navy.[2] This plan was sparked by the threat of the British Foreign Office in March 1897, after the British invasion of Transvaal that started the Boer War, to blockade the German coast and thereby cripple the German economy, if Germany would intervene in the conflict in Transvaal.[3] From 1905 on, the British navy developed plans for such a blockade that was a central part of British strategy.[4] In reaction to this challenge to their naval supremacy, from 1902 to 1910, the British Royal Navy embarked on its own massive expansion to keep ahead of the Germans. This competition came to focus on the revolutionary new ships based on HMS Dreadnought, which was launched in 1906.

The naval race between Britain and Germany generated huge public support on each side. In the midst of the race, the British public coined the slogan 'We want eight and we won't wait!',[5] referring to the number of dreadnoughts they wanted the government to build. With the surge of public support, the government did commission more shipbuilding.

Christopher Clark, The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914, 2012, page 148-149

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(1906)#Significance
Her design so thoroughly eclipsed earlier types that subsequent battleships of all nations were generically known as "dreadnoughts" and older battleships disparaged as "pre-dreadnoughts". Her very short construction time was intended to demonstrate that Britain could build an unassailable lead in the new type of battleships.[48] Her construction sparked off a naval arms race, and soon all major fleets were adding Dreadnought-like ships.[2]

If you read between the lines the British needed a focus for the public to get behind naval spending and with the need to replace their entire BB fleet upon the Dreadnought effectively making the world's entire stock obsolescent; German naval construction was a very convenient panic to get the public to tolerate the spending. Of course the US was building up a big fleet at the same time and the British said nothing about it.
 
I. The UK stays out of the war

Paris may or may not fall after the Battle of the Frontiers, but even if it doesn't the German advance is much deeper than it historically was.

France had a population of 40 million and GDP of 219Bn USD, while Germany had a population of 68 million and GDP of 400Bn USD (2015 values). They're very much the under-dog.

It may, however, force France to adopt a defensive mentality as opposed to the repeated offensives that bled the nation dry over the 4 years. A bitter stalemate occurs while Russia teeters as it did historically, eventually collapsing.

The fall of Russia forces France to the negotiating table. Belgium's eastern border moves west (as land is taken by Germany) and its southern border moves south (as land is taken from France in compensation). Belgium becomes effectively a satellite of Germany, nominally independent (to avoid angering Britain) but economically tied into Germany to such an extent that Belgium wouldn't realistically be able to adopt domestic or foreign policies that Germany disagreed with.

France leaves the war with territory lost to Belgium and war debt to Germany. It is made to officially renounce claims to Alsace-Lorraine. French colonies in Africa are ceded to Germany: the Belgian Congo, French Equatorial Africa, perhaps parts of French West Africa.

Many French coastal towns have suffered bombardment from the German navy, and indeed the French navy may have fought and lost a major battle against the High Seas Fleet (14 Dreadnoughts to 4, 22 pre-Dreadnoughts to 17) in the North Sea or English Channel.

Italy will leave the war probably having to make some payments. That front was a stalemate and the Austro-Hungarian Empire wouldn't be in a position to demand much. Gains in the Balkans are, however, cemented. This assumes Italy even joins the war on the Entente side, it may simply sit the whole thing out.

II. The UK joins the war on the Central Powers' side

A probably one-sided affair becomes an openly one-sided affair. The French coast is blockaded by the High Seas Fleet while the Grand Fleet of the UK is sent to the Mediterranean Sea to do battle with the French and Italian navies. With around 10 Dreadnoughts to face the British 18 (initially) the Entente forces would struggle, again assuming the Italians even joined the war.

If not the French Navy is hopelessly outmatched and likely won't even leave port. The Royal Navy attacks French shipping worldwide and British troops occupy Corsica (and Sardinia and Sicily if Italy joins the war) and conduct a North African campaign.

British troops make an appearance in Europe, with a small BEF attached to German forces invading France.

British support for the Central Powers likely comes at the cost of Belgian neutrality, however, meaning the frontline with France is bloodier. Having to keep troops spread around the country to prevent British naval landings, however, robs France of much-needed manpower in the east.

Russia is defeated as per history, with little else happening except perhaps some British naval action in the White Sea and some skirmishing in Afghanistan. The Russians didn't have anything the British wanted.

The war concludes with France losing colonies to both Britain and Germany. The British Empire in the middle east never comes to pass, though, as the Ottoman Empire won't be carved up.
 

nastle

Banned
Its all about framing and the English wrote the english language history of the conflict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_naval_arms_race


Christopher Clark, The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914, 2012, page 148-149

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(1906)#Significance


If you read between the lines the British needed a focus for the public to get behind naval spending and with the need to replace their entire BB fleet upon the Dreadnought effectively making the world's entire stock obsolescent; German naval construction was a very convenient panic to get the public to tolerate the spending. Of course the US was building up a big fleet at the same time and the British said nothing about it.
Great points

When soviets did the same thing later in the century they were blamed for the armed race not USA
 
The problem with the Anglo-German alliance was not Germany it was Britain. The Naval Arms race was conceived of by the Royal Navy as a propaganda tool to increase their own funding; their construction of the Dreadnought was really the cause, not German naval construction; that ended in 1912 anyway after Germany tried to sign a naval treaty with Britain, but was rebuffed and they didn't create any new naval laws anyway.

Britain also refused when Germany offered them a treat of alliance in 1901 they wanted a Entente Cordial without concrete commitments, which Germany would not accept. Ultimately Britain refused to be tied down. So when the war started in 1914 Britain had a clique of anti-German politicians at the top of the power structure that were determined to go to war if Germany moved West and probably would have tried to enter even if Germany turned East; the moment Germany looked ready to beat France and occupy Belgium Britain was ready to fight.

The only way to keep Britain out of the war is abandon the Schlieffen Plan in 1914 and only DoW Russia, which opens up a lot of butterflies and a worse war for Germany in the long run. France would have joined in anyway and done some damage near the border. That treaty that ends the war ITTL wouldn't be at Versailles and the war would be so radically different that you'd need to lay out the course war and how the conflict ends to tell you what the treaty would look like.

Of course ! How did we miss it ???

All was the fault of an evil clique of anti-german politiciens that run the british government !!!! :eek:

Obvious geostrategy is a much more serious explanation.
It was not about anti-germanism although there were anti-germans.
It was not even mainly about formally protecting the belgian neutrality.
It was most of all about balance of powers.

Britain, for obvious reasons, could not tolerate an hegemonic power in continental Europe.
It could not stand napoleonic France to exert a protectorate on the United Provinces, Italy plus West Germany.
It could not more stand wilhelmine Germany to dominate Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Baltic States, and a diminished defeated France.

That's all the story.
 
If you read between the lines the British needed a focus for the public to get behind naval spending and with the need to replace their entire BB fleet upon the Dreadnought effectively making the world's entire stock obsolescent; German naval construction was a very convenient panic to get the public to tolerate the spending. Of course the US was building up a big fleet at the same time and the British said nothing about it.

In somewhat fairness, without the erratic behavior of Kaiser Wilhelm to cement some sort of menace figure to the general public and Whitehall the naval build up would probably have been a fairly tough sell. The US was a long way from the vital assets of the Empire and had its own defined sphere of influence which didn't interfere with those of the Empire. Those of Germany were harder to pin down and made a much more convenient target.
 

Deleted member 1487

Of course ! How did we miss it ???

All was the fault of an evil clique of anti-german politiciens that run the british government !!!! :eek:
In reference to the naval race it was Britain that made a thing of it once the Dreadnought came around and sparked a building frenzy all around to replace their obsolete BB stocks.

Obvious geostrategy is a much more serious explanation.
It was not about anti-germanism although there were anti-germans.
It was not even mainly about formally protecting the belgian neutrality.
It was most of all about balance of powers.

Britain, for obvious reasons, could not tolerate an hegemonic power in continental Europe.
It could not stand napoleonic France to exert a protectorate on the United Provinces, Italy plus West Germany.
It could not more stand wilhelmine Germany to dominate Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Baltic States, and a diminished defeated France.

That's all the story.
In terms of WW1 that's a whole different situation. Germany obviously deserves its share of the blame, but let's not forget that it was the Russians that mobilized first after Germany said that would mean war if they did and none of that was reported in Britain until the 1920s.

Britain obviously had its own interests, which is why I said Britain would not and could not stay neutral if it invades the Lowlands and beats France. So the POD for this situation is going to have to be a 'no Schlieffen Plan' scenario, which changes pretty much the entire context of the war on all sides.
 

Deleted member 1487

In somewhat fairness, without the erratic behavior of Kaiser Wilhelm to cement some sort of menace figure to the general public and Whitehall the naval build up would probably have been a fairly tough sell. The US was a long way from the vital assets of the Empire and had its own defined sphere of influence which didn't interfere with those of the Empire. Those of Germany were harder to pin down and made a much more convenient target.
Sure, Wilhelm was a bombastic nut, which provided a convenient foil to propagandize, not to mention German military dominance on the continent and economic eclipsing of Britain. They were just the most convenient target for a rivalry when they started building up a fleet to outstrip Britain and France.
 

Mostly agreed, except for Italy. Britain provided most of Italy's coal, and this was very important back then.

So in the first case (British neutrality) Italian entry into the war almost certainly won't happen because the Entente will be seen as losing while in the second case (British intervention on the German side) the Italians are more likely to join the Anglo-Austro-German coalition.
 
Top