USA attempts to Mediate World War War, 1916.

[Edit: I MEANT to write World War ONE. I just can't do anything about it. Too little sleep... :(]

Somehow, I think this was the option that the USA really forgot about in OTL. Instead of a massive jingoistic campaign for the USA to join the Allied Powers, what if the United States decides that UK Interdiction and German Sinking of its ships means that some kind of peace deal has to be made?

I suppose that this would require a massive re-write of Woodrow Wilson (who is among the most overrated US Presidents in history), but assuming that Woodrow Wilson isn't the bigoted quasi-fascist that he was, what happens if the United States decides to intervene diplomatically to end the first world war rather than trying to choose a side?

What the battered nations of WW1 be willing to accept a negotiated peace deal, with the USA serving as a mediator? And if they were, what would it look like?
 
If we assume a willingness on all sides, this ties in pretty well with Austrian efforts using the Bourbon-Parma princes.

Austria-Hungary would survive but would undergo radical internal reform

The Ottoman Empire would survive and likely not lose any territory

German-dominated independent but quasi-puppet Poland and Lithuania would be on the cards

Serbia would have to hand some land over to Bulgaria

Italy might make some gains in Istria but not including Trieste

Albania may see some of its territories shorn off, or we could see it fully restored under its legitimate king

Hmmm...

I'm not very good at this type of thing today
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Both sides had spent too much to accept anything like a peace status quo ante bellum.
Both sides have definately spent too much to accept a peace where they have quite clearly lost.

The first probably means a collapse of government. The second probably means a revolution. Negotiation is doomed to failure so long as both sides consider victory just one big push away. If one side is willing to concede, the other shall continue to press in order to force them to yeild.
 
Two words for you, Alsace-Lorraine. After Verdun, neither can accept it's loss without complete defeat.
 
Last edited:
Two words for you, Alasce-Lorraine. After Verdun, neither can accept it's loss without complete defeat.


I know very little (read: nothing) about Alsace-Lorraine, but could there have been a split: Elsass to Germany, Lorraine to France?
 
I know very little (read: nothing) about Alsace-Lorraine, but could there have been a split: Elsass to Germany, Lorraine to France?

Short answer no, long answer:

To give up any territory would be seen as a sign of failure. Also there was no such split in the population of the region. You would probably end up angering more people, since both sides would be angry instead of one or the other. A good compromise is one where both parties leave satisfied. This is not a good compromise.
 
What about an independent Alasce-Lorranie then sort of like the free city of Danzig or somewhat in that direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig

Or Germany gets Elsass and France Lothringen. This i say without knowing how many Germans and French lived in each of the areas.

An independent Alsace-Lorraine would be better than splitting the territory but how long could it really last. I mean, look what happened to Danzig. Plus I just can't see it. It wouldn't be seen as worth the millions of lives lost.

However it might be the only solution. Just don't expect peace.
 
What about an independent Alasce-Lorranie then sort of like the free city of Danzig or somewhat in that direction.
Wasn't there an extremely short-lived independent socialist Republic of Alsace-Lorraine?

Obviously, no Socialist nation will survive, but would the French have crushed any independence movement, irrespective of politics?
 
Short answer no, long answer:

To give up any territory would be seen as a sign of failure. Also there was no such split in the population of the region. You would probably end up angering more people, since both sides would be angry instead of one or the other. A good compromise is one where both parties leave satisfied. This is not a good compromise.
Actually, there was a split, in that Germans grow more common the more one approached the Rhine.
Of course, in OTL, Germany actually only had Elsass plus a small bit of Lorraine (the bit north of Elsass), so it, hm, was already the case, more or less, before the War.
 
Actually, there was a split, in that Germans grow more common the more one approached the Rhine.
Of course, in OTL, Germany actually only had Elsass plus a small bit of Lorraine (the bit north of Elsass), so it, hm, was already the case, more or less, before the War.

The closer one got to the Rhine the more Germans one met. But you can't really say the Germans were in Elsass and the French Lorraine (unless you count the French parts of Lorraine which is just missing my point).
 
:confused:
The US did try to mediate WW1 and bring about an end to it. More than once (though some of those were government-backed civilians going to Europe). They were such ignominious failures that they've been quietly forgotten after they were unable to convince European governments that stopping a war after tens of thousands have died is a better than continuing the war.
 
The closer one got to the Rhine the more Germans one met. But you can't really say the Germans were in Elsass and the French Lorraine (unless you count the French parts of Lorraine which is just missing my point).
The French parts of Lorraine were almost all of Lorraine.
And it made a more convenient split then most alternatives.
 
Last edited:
The French parts of Lorraine were almost all of Lorraine.
And it made a more convinient split then most alternatives.

Exactly Bismark split Lorraine into a German part and a French part. They had already been split into ethnic parts. There were stilll some French in the German parts but there were definatly many germans in German Lorraine. A good example of a German town in German Lorraine would be Diedenhofen (Thionville if your french). To give the French all the remaining parts of Lorraine would create a very wierd border indeed. And would the Germans get the town of Belfort?
 
Exactly Bismark split Lorraine into a German part and a French part. They had already been split into ethnic parts. There were stilll some French in the German parts but there were definatly many germans in German Lorraine. A good example of a German town in German Lorraine would be Diedenhofen (Thionville if your french). To give the French all the remaining parts of Lorraine would create a very wierd border indeed. And would the Germans get the town of Belfort?
Quite so.
I was mostly reacting to your 'no split in the population of the region', in that there, in a manner of speaking was, and that split followed the border.

That, and Geordie's suggestion of spliting Elsass-Lothringen.
 
Quite so.
I was mostly reacting to your 'no split in the population of the region', in that there, in a manner of speaking was, and that split followed the border.

That, and Geordie's suggestion of spliting Elsass-Lothringen.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that the Population of Elsass-Lothringen was the same everywhere. However there was not a sudden change from French to German, which is what I meant when I said the population wasn't split.
 
Oh, I wasn't suggesting that the Population of Elsass-Lothringen was the same everywhere. However there was not a sudden change from French to German, which is what I meant when I said the population wasn't split.
Well, I didn't really mean that either.
Border areas are the best argument against nation-states.;)
 
Top