Treaty_of_Versailles questions.

[zoomar]

All of which is completely correct. I'm somewhat dubious on swift CP/Entente victories being very good; The German Septemberprogramm, while certainly not as harsh as the Versailles treaty, still was an extremely harsh plan, and I doubt French plans would be any kinder.

I may be wrong, but it is my impression the pre-war and early war aim statements of both the Germans and French were more in the nature of propagandistic wishful thinking, floated as much for popular consumption in the homelands as for actual diplomacy. Even if WW1 ended in 1914 with Germans routing that Allies at the Marne and in Flanders and marching into Paris and to the sea, there would be a negotiation process needed to determine the actual peace treaty. Since Britain and Russia would not be beaten, the CP states would have to offer terms that they would accept if they wanted to end the war. Absent 4 years of trench warfare to enflame hatreds and far less of an ideological divide between Germany and the allies than in 1940-41, I think cooler heads on both sides might have prevailed. It certainly wouldn't be a "white peace" for France, but it might have been close to that for Britain and Russia.

 

[Mikestone8]

I may be wrong, but it is my impression the pre-war and early war aim statements of both the Germans and French were more in the nature of propagandistic wishful thinking, floated as much for popular consumption in the homelands as for actual diplomacy. Even if WW1 ended in 1914 with Germans routing that Allies at the Marne and in Flanders and marching into Paris and to the sea, there would be a negotiation process needed to determine the actual peace treaty. Since Britain and Russia would not be beaten, the CP states would have to offer terms that they would accept if they wanted to end the war. Absent 4 years of trench warfare to enflame hatreds and far less of an ideological divide between Germany and the allies than in 1940-41, I think cooler heads on both sides might have prevailed. It certainly wouldn't be a "white peace" for France, but it might have been close to that for Britain and Russia.

Why would Russia not be beaten? With France knocked out, Germany would have ample forces to do it.

 

[AdA]

Naval issues

Even with France out, Britain would not settle unless the issue of German naval challenge was solved. A durable peace would require a winning Germany to accept major limitations on its navy, something that would require the Germans to be way more reasonable and long term minded then they were....

 

[zoomar]

Mikestone,

Perhaps, but in 1914 Russia was not yet beaten - far from it in fact. You are probably correct that Germany's response to a 1914 victory on the western front would just be to reposition forces to defeat Russia while maybe switch earlier to unrestricted submarine warfare to blockade Britain assuming it stayed in the war (and maybe bring the US in much earlier). This woud represent a missed opportunity for peace on generally favorable terms.

AdA,

Point taken. This would be tough sell in Germany.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Why would Russia not be beaten? With France knocked out, Germany would have ample forces to do it.

In 1914 Russia actually didn't do all that poorly against the Germans on the defensive. Of the major battles against Germany in that year, Jilinsky's army group had the worst defeats, while the Battles of the Vistula and Lodz were actually straightforward tactical victories. Russia is still more likely to sue for peace without France, but its tactical performance in 1914 means it's got good reasons to get a white peace.

 

[BlondieBC]

A point of clarification regarding my own opinions on WW1 and Versailles before people assume I hate Germany.

-Germany did not cause WW1
-The German Empire was not inherently evil
-Had WW1 ended in 1914 with a swift CP victory, the world would have been far better off (a swift entente victory would also have been a good thing)
-The Versailles 'Diktat" was excessive, needlessly punitive, and unenforceable (the world would probably have been far better if it was essentially a "white" peace that just reestablished the prewar borders that made sense).
- By 1918-19, any hypothetical CP-victory peace treaty would have been just as harsh or harsher regarding France, Italy, Serbia, etc
-The French, in particular, were jerks (but we do need to remember that the war was basically fought in France and France was far more affected by war damage than Germany)
-Because Versailles was harsh and unenforceable, the outcome would have far been better if the Allies had completely conquered and occupied Germany so the backstab theory wouldn't be so important in Germany, and its terms could be absolutely enforced
-By treating the the new German Republic as a pariah, exacting punitive reparations, and excluding it from membership in the League of Nations and other treaty opportunities, the Allies effectivly destroyed the legitimacy of the very elements of German society that could have forestalled the rise of Communism and Fascism.
-As a sovereign nation, it is understandable that Germany sought to rearm and overturn the most harsh elements of the Treaty. All German governments - not just the Nazis - did this. The Nazis just did it openly and more aggressively.
-It is equally understandable that in the 1930's many in the allied camp would interpret German reoccupation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss, and even the Sudetenland as tolerable revisions to what some now believed was an needlessly harsh treaty.
-However, it was allied reluctance to enforce these elements when they held an overwhelming military advantage that led to Hitler's success. It is now well known that anti-Nazi elements in the German military were prepared to stage a coup against the Nazis if any of these grabs met with allied resistance.

Largely correct.

A CP quick win is better for the world than a Entente quick win not due to any virtue of the Germans, but due to the geopolitical reality.

1) France was fighting above here weight class. France -45 million people. Germany 70 million. If Germany tried to impose a treaty to make France too weak to start another war, Germany is more likely to succeed due to greater initial strength. Taking the industrial region from France would have largely crippled France.

2) The mess that is the Balkans. While A-H had many flaws, A-H generally handled minorities better than the successor states such as Yugoslavia. Overall, If A-H survived until today, the average man would better off than OTL.

Now the best scenario is not to fight any war, but that is hard with so many leaders looking to advance their interest through military bluffing, brinksmanship, destablization campaigns, and assassination.

 

[BlondieBC]

Why would Russia not be beaten? With France knocked out, Germany would have ample forces to do it.

Falkenhayn believe a negotiated peace with one Entente nation would be required for Germany to win the war. Since he was a France first man, it is obvious he plan to impose terms on Paris and negotiate with Russia. If Falkenhayn has a great win in France, he will never be replaced as senior military commander.

Yes if Paris is captured by May 1915, Germany and A-H will maul the Russian armies, but there will be a peace offer for the Tsar. The CP will drive as far as need for the Tsar to agree to negotiate peace. Also, likely Italy is not in the war if France goes down fast, so the full weight of A-H goes into Russia.

Even with France out, Britain would not settle unless the issue of German naval challenge was solved. A durable peace would require a winning Germany to accept major limitations on its navy, something that would require the Germans to be way more reasonable and long term minded then they were....

You are generally correct. Solved is a bit too strong of a word IMO. "Workable Solution" is closer. Since at one point prewar Germany was at 60% of UK Navy and UK was at 50%, this is not a terribly hard treaty to negotiate. Especially if the UK is willing to give the colonial empire back to Germany, or at least most of it that was lost.

 

[BlondieBC]

Mikestone,

Perhaps, but in 1914 Russia was not yet beaten - far from it in fact. You are probably correct that Germany's response to a 1914 victory on the western front would just be to reposition forces to defeat Russia while maybe switch earlier to unrestricted submarine warfare to blockade Britain assuming it stayed in the war (and maybe bring the US in much earlier). This woud represent a missed opportunity for peace on generally favorable terms.

I don't think we would see USW faster than OTL. Germany will have access to at least some French ports, I see them trying more conventional surface warfare with AMC and smaller military ships. The Germans used rail to move smaller U-boats to the Adriatic, so give a few months Germany should be able to figure out how to build raiders ships in the French ports. Even very limited range torpedo boats based out of Brest would cause fits for the UK. Germany might also try to buy merchant ships in neutral ports and covertly arm them. Once at sea, they could use the Atlantic ports of France to fight.

A lot depends on how France loses, but in most scenarios Germany will give surface warfare at least one more serious try. And Germany will loot France, so the food and supplies issues will be much less than OTL in 1915. There was so much looted food that meat price were declining in Germany in the early months of the war IOTL.

 

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

France was fighting above here weight class. France -45 million people. Germany 70 million. If Germany tried to impose a treaty to make France too weak to start another war, Germany is more likely to succeed due to greater initial strength. Taking the industrial region from France would have largely crippled France.

Russia more than covers for France's lack of quantity.

2) The mess that is the Balkans. While A-H had many flaws, A-H generally handled minorities better than the successor states such as Yugoslavia. Overall, If A-H survived until today, the average man would better off than OTL.

Austria-Hungary would survive a quick Entente victory at least till the next re-negotiation of the A-H compromise, while Yugoslavia would not exist without a long war and the independent Croatians and Slovenes being threatened by an expansive Italy.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Falkenhayn believe a negotiated peace with one Entente nation would be required for Germany to win the war. Since he was a France first man, it is obvious he plan to impose terms on Paris and negotiate with Russia. If Falkenhayn has a great win in France, he will never be replaced as senior military commander.

Yes if Paris is captured by May 1915, Germany and A-H will maul the Russian armies, but there will be a peace offer for the Tsar. The CP will drive as far as need for the Tsar to agree to negotiate peace. Also, likely Italy is not in the war if France goes down fast, so the full weight of A-H goes into Russia.

The same A-H that got slapped around by the Russians with impunity and which lost Galicia for nine months? Germany can do it, if Germany decides not to go lollygagging into the Russian interior and hoping that 1812 won't repeat itself, instead choosing something like Falkenhayn's approach but larger-scale. Germany concentrates the entire weight of its armies, the odds of Germany deciding to do something really, really stupid increase exponentially because there's more for Germany to screw up with.

 

[BlondieBC]

Russia more than covers for France's lack of quantity.

Not without structural reform. I am assuming in a quick, decisive with that Germany keeps the coal and iron mines of NE France. France will lack the industrial base and the population to have a credible army. And Germany will have no need for offensive western plans, but will focus its army towards the east in future wars.

Russia has the potential under competent leadership to cause Germany problems. But Tsar Nicholas was not competent.

Net, Net these items, the combined French/Russian Army will be much weaker than the combined German/A-H Army.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Not without structural reform. I am assuming in a quick, decisive with that Germany keeps the coal and iron mines of NE France. France will lack the industrial base and the population to have a credible army. And Germany will have no need for offensive western plans, but will focus its army towards the east in future wars.

Russia has the potential under competent leadership to cause Germany problems. But Tsar Nicholas was not competent.

Net, Net these items, the combined French/Russian Army will be much weaker than the combined German/A-H Army.

In a quick, decisive victory in the West, the Russians will still have large numbers of troops in East Prussia, while the Germans did try that kind of smashing victory twice in 1914: in the Battles of the Vistula and at Lodz. In both cases the tactical outcome favored the Russians, not the Germans.

 

[Magnificate]

A CP quick win is better for the world than a Entente quick win not due to any virtue of the Germans, but due to the geopolitical reality.

1) France was fighting above here weight class. France -45 million people. Germany 70 million. If Germany tried to impose a treaty to make France too weak to start another war, Germany is more likely to succeed due to greater initial strength. Taking the industrial region from France would have largely crippled France.

Wait, isn't that exactly the reason that early CP win would be worse rather than better? If CP wins Germany becomes much more difficult to challenge and is very nearly an European hegemon. This situation can go on for decades until German powers finally erodes. I'd rather see states competing on more equal ground as happened with the Entente victory.

 

[BlondieBC]

Wait, isn't that exactly the reason that early CP win would be worse rather than better? If CP wins Germany becomes much more difficult to challenge and is very nearly an European hegemon. This situation can go on for decades until German powers finally erodes. I'd rather see states competing on more equal ground as happened with the Entente victory.

Yes, it is worse for some leaders and nations. But better overall.

A dominant German land power would be stable and have the best odds of preventing a second major war. Avoiding war is the best outcome for the common man.

The balance of power after Napoleon worked because the UK switched sides to make it work. With the British Empire declining and the UK in an alliance system, a closely balanced system means we are more likely to see a second war.

And if the Entente wins quickly, then Russia is likely to gain the most. Do you believe Russia dominating continental Europe would be better than Germany for the average worker or farmer?

No war is best. A short war is better than a long war. A CP win in a short war is better than an Entente win.

 

[Magnificate]

A dominant German land power would be stable and have the best odds of preventing a second major war. Avoiding war is the best outcome for the common man.

Preventing war is desireable, but not at the cost of enforcing an undesireable peace.

To make it clearer, it seems that your position assumes Germany would have an overall positive influence on the territory it dominates. While it is rather easy to be better than, let's say, Soviet Russia, it's hard to imagine any hegemon not abusing their power.

From my personal narrower perspective CP victory means Polish territories remain divided and Poland itself relegated to puppet status with little hope for improvement.

 

[RousseauX]

A dominant German land power would be stable and have the best odds of preventing a second major war. Avoiding war is the best outcome for the common man.

This is one of those assertions which is blatantly wishful thinking.

Why would German hegemony in Europe, assuming a win in 1918 (because I'm skeptical if a 1914 victory could effect a hegemony) be stable?

 

[BlondieBC]

The same A-H that got slapped around by the Russians with impunity and which lost Galicia for nine months? Germany can do it, if Germany decides not to go lollygagging into the Russian interior and hoping that 1812 won't repeat itself, instead choosing something like Falkenhayn's approach but larger-scale. Germany concentrates the entire weight of its armies, the odds of Germany deciding to do something really, really stupid increase exponentially because there's more for Germany to screw up with.

You missed the word "And" between Germany and A-H.

You also missed that France has fallen and Italy will not enter the war. So when the Spring Offensive of 1915 starts, there Russians will be driven much father back and strategically should make peace. Germany will have at least one and probably 2 full additional armies, and A-H will have an additional army. Nickie made a lot of bad decisions, so he might refuse to in 1915, but the CP will still win in a curb stomp.

 

[BlondieBC]

In a quick, decisive victory in the West, the Russians will still have large numbers of troops in East Prussia, while the Germans did try that kind of smashing victory twice in 1914: in the Battles of the Vistula and at Lodz. In both cases the tactical outcome favored the Russians, not the Germans.

Your understanding of WW1 is very inaccurate. When Germany focused in the East, it was able to achieve both tactical and strategic wins. Yes, with 7/8 of its army in the West, 1914 had both wins and losses. IOTL 1915 was a basically a huge CP win in the east after May. The only thing that stopped the Germans was transferring 300 battalions to the West. With France out of the war, this will not happen, and the advance will continue well past August and only be stopped by the winter.

 

[krull1m]

A dominant German land power would be stable and have the best odds of preventing a second major war. Avoiding war is the best outcome for the common man.

Instead you get years (if not decades) of internal fighting from resistance movements determined to free their country from the evil invaders. Resistance units that are supported by other nations who see it essential to destablise the new German empire to stop them from attempting to invade other nations.

There is no way that Belgium and France (as well as others) would simply sit back and accept being conquered, Britain would not sit back and watch as Germany dominated Europe, and its quite possible that the USA would not sit back and do nothing either.

Even if Germany didnt take over, and simply settled for a treaty even more restrictive than Versailles it wouldnt bring peace. If the german people were angry about their treaty then you can be sure that the french would be too, and would look for any and every opportunity they could to fight back.

So rather than a quick CP victory being a good thing, it would be just as bad if not far worse than OTL.

 

[BlondieBC]

Preventing war is desireable, but not at the cost of enforcing an undesireable peace.

To make it clearer, it seems that your position assumes Germany would have an overall positive influence on the territory it dominates. While it is rather easy to be better than, let's say, Soviet Russia, it's hard to imagine any hegemon not abusing their power.

From my personal narrower perspective CP victory means Polish territories remain divided and Poland itself relegated to puppet status with little hope for improvement.

IMO, any peace treaty ending WW1 will have serious flaws. The question is more under what type of conditions are these flaws least likely to lead to future problems. A CP quick win is the most likely to be a lasting peace.

You are also misunderstanding the standard. Germany will have a more positive influence than the ALTERNATIVES. I am comparing Germany to other likely outcomes, not to any absolute improvement in standard of living, education levels or civil rights.

Tsarist Russia was worse to live in than Kaiserreich. Germany did not do pogroms. USSR was worse. Nazis were worse. Yugoslavia was worse than A-H.

And yes, Poland can easily endup a client state. And West Prussia and Posen will not be a part of this client state. Hapsburg Poland will be better than Tsarist Poland. And the Kaiser dominated Poland has a good chance of being better than Tsarist Poland. And any of these is better than OTL.