War guilt clause in a CP victory scenario?

If the CP's won WWI would there be a war guilt clause in the peace?
If yes who would be labeled as the main perpetrator?
If Serbia is declared guilty because of the assasination is it possible that an international organization would be created to deal with "terrorist" states? If not that would the victors try to come up with something in this regard?
 
Serbia could be seen as war guilt. Perhaps Russia and France too. Russia because it helped Serbia and escalated the war and France because it helped Russia and war lasted longer because of that.

United Kingdom seems being bit implausible when CPs hardly can do with that anything else than negotiate peace. Italy probably is not seen as war guilt all if it even joins in this scenario.
 
Serbia could be seen as war guilt. Perhaps Russia and France too. Russia because it helped Serbia and escalated the war and France because it helped Russia and war lasted longer because of that.

United Kingdom seems being bit implausible when CPs hardly can do with that anything else than negotiate peace. Italy probably is not seen as war guilt all if it even joins in this scenario.

Later joinees are very hard to blame for causing the war so that makes Italy a hard case. OTOH if Italy betrays the CP's like OTL and the CP's decide to include a war guilt clause in the peace treaties im pretty sure they will find a way to include Italy somehow.
 
There's literally no way in this scenario that Serbia avoids getting slapped with responsibility for starting the war. None at all.
 
Considering that "war guilt" was a pure legal formality to justify the payment of reparations, and which was only spinnable that way because of the Entente making separate treaties with the Central Powers, it will of course figure in the peace treaties.
Don't expect France to be able to pay much in the way of reparations post Russian revolution, though.
 
I doubt the CP would even care about such thing

Im not sure - hence the question. But the allies did bother - they too didnt need to. AFAIK the Brest-Litovsk treaty did not include any clause like this - I will check later when I have the opportunity. But a peace with France and especially Serbia was never concluded and I think that if the CP's include it in any threaty it will be the Serbian. Not only because of the asassination but because of all the other stuff the serbs pulled as well: serbian underground and semi official organizations at large on the territory of Austria, especially Bosnia, propaganda openly clamoring for the annexation of huge swathe of Habsburg territory supported on state level. Both the official and unofficial organizations supported or commited criminal activities on Austrian territory - the assassination was only the tip of an iceberg. Serbian officials were not only included in these - the leader off the Black Hand was high ranking army officer. And even Pasic was aware of the assassination attempt before it happened. He even tried to warn Vienna but managed to do so in such a vague way that it had no effect.
 
Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, and Ukraine all stay independent. AH wants to punish Serbia. Germany keeps the territory occupied by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk as punishment to Russia. Ottomans get all the Arab areas from France and Britain as payment. I could see Germany keeping Belgium and Areas in France as reparations.
 
Probably not--after all, there was no war guilt clause in the Versalles Treaty, either!


"The Reparation clauses of the treaty—on which, as noted, Marks has written extensively—
have given rise to the most egregious and long-lasting myths associated with the peace
settlement. Her main insight about reparations—which has been highlighted by Mark
Trachtenberg6 and others-- is that the Allied leaders in Paris were caught in a terrible
dilemma: they recognized that post-war Germany would be incapable of bearing the
enormous financial burden of rebuilding the territories ravished by its armies during the
war. But they also knew that their publics had been led to expect Germany to pay for the
entire cost of reconstruction and would cashier any head of government who settled for
anything less than full payment. They therefore resorted to a masterly sleight-of-hand:
Under Article 231 of the peace treaty, Germany would be required to acknowledge full
responsibility for the damage done. Article 232 would concede that Germany could not be
expected to pay beyond its capacity. Thus, the Allied publics would have the satisfaction of
knowing that Germany would be required to accept responsibility for the damage caused
by its military forces in northeastern France, Belgium, and elsewhere. The Weimar
Republic should have been relieved to learn that it would it not be required to pay a war
indemnity or the actual costs of the war, as France had after 1871 at the end of a war in
which no German territory had been damaged. Germany should also have been pleased to
note that the reparation bill would be based not on the total amount of damage caused but
rather on Germany’s economic wherewithal to pay. But Marks notes that no amount of
reparation payment would have been acceptable to the leaders of the Weimar Republic
because such payments were erroneously connected in the mind of the German public
with the widespread myth of the “war guilt clause.” As she has reminded us in her earlier
work, the word “guilt” does not appear in the notorious Article 231, and virtually identical
language was included in the treaties signed with Germany’s allies. Yet the myth of the
“war guilt clause” unilaterally imposed on Germany, which was propagated in the early
1920s by Weimar officials and opinion makers, has stood the test of time and continues to
find its way into histories of the peace settlement."

https://issforum.org/reviews/PDF/AR429.pdf
 
What is known as the war guilt clause was in actuality, a legal procedure to secure reparations from the defeated Central Powers. With that in mind, I do think the Central Powers would attempt to blame Serbia and Russia as the principle ignitors of the war and therefore, demand reparations and even territory from them
 
What is known as the war guilt clause was in actuality, a legal procedure to secure reparations from the defeated Central Powers. With that in mind, I do think the Central Powers would attempt to blame Serbia and Russia as the principle ignitors of the war and therefore, demand reparations and even territory from them
Germany would definitely grab French territory (thinking of Briey-Longwy) because it can.
 
Germany would definitely grab French territory (thinking of Briey-Longwy) because it can.


According to the Septemberprogramm, Chancellor Behtmann Hollweg desired for Germany to obtain a strip of land from Bolougne sur-Mer to Dunkirk (approximately 74 kilometres of French territory). This is what that strip would look like.


upload_2019-12-12_20-15-22.png
 
Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, and Ukraine all stay independent. AH wants to punish Serbia. Germany keeps the territory occupied by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk as punishment to Russia. Ottomans get all the Arab areas from France and Britain as payment. I could see Germany keeping Belgium and Areas in France as reparations.

There is not way how Ottomans take anything from UK and France. Had France even anything what Ottomans would had wanted? Even if OE would be totally unable take Tunisia or Algeria. And it is absolutely unable take even Kuwait or Egypt. Ottomans might take samething from Russia but nothing else.
 
If you mean, would the Allies or some of them be made to pay an indemnity, the answer is yes.

An old post of mine:

***

Arthur Link's *Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era* discuses (p. 259) Germany's peace terms as of 1916:

"On December 12, therefore, the Chancellor announced to an excited Reichstag that the Imperial government was ready to join with its enemies to end the war. 18 He said nothing about the German terms, which, if they had been disclosed, would have shocked the world. They included, in the East, establishment of the Kingdom of Poland and German annexation of the Baltic provinces of Courland and Lithuania; in the West, "guarantees in Belgium" or the annexation of Liege and "corresponding areas," annexation of Luxemburg and the French territories of Briey and Longwy, which contained great iron deposits, strategic boundary adjustments in Alsace-Lorraine, and indemnities; overseas, the return of German colonies, except Kiaochow, the Carolines, and the Marianas, and acquisition of all or part of the Belgian Congo.... These were the terms agreed upon by the Emperor, Hindenburg, and Bethmann-Hollweg. See Official German Documents, II, 1059-1062, 1064. For an excellent discussion see Hans W. Gatzke, Germany's Drive to the West (Baltimore, 1950), pp. 139-144." https://archive.org/stream/woodrowwilsonand007665mbp#page/n301/mode/2up/

So at the very least, Liege, Luxembourg, Briey, and Longway seem likely to be annexed; Belgium (with border "adjustments" in Liege and perhaps elsewhere) would not be "annexed" but would in effect become a German protectorate. Note that Count Monts, former ambassador to Rome, a regular contributor to the *Berliner Tageblatt* and a relative moderate who believed that Germany must eventually make peace with Britain (since both nations had more to fear from the Russian "colossus" than from each other) "suggested that Britain might be persuaded to accept German annexation of the Belgian border town of Liege. Other demands might include the French railways in Turkish Anatolia, a war indemnity, and the iron fields of Briey in exchange for Thann. At the very least, Monts believed, Germany would need to annex Liege and Luxembourg in order to guarantee the future security of the Rhineland industrial area..." https://books.google.com/books?id=iCGEPwGvqVUC&pg=PA122

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...and-northeastern-france.466617/#post-18840494

***

Note that Bethman-Hollweg spoke of "indemnities" and even Monts of "a war indemnity."
 
Liège being a "border town" in the first place feels wrong. Sorta like Aachen being a border town for Germany with Belgium before WWI.
 
There is not way how Ottomans take anything from UK and France. Had France even anything what Ottomans would had wanted? Even if OE would be totally unable take Tunisia or Algeria. And it is absolutely unable take even Kuwait or Egypt. Ottomans might take samething from Russia but nothing else.

Honestly, the problem with the POD is we do not know how the CP won and that really leaves a great deal up in the air. I did make a mistake and was thinking WW2 and not WW1 map sorry it was late. I was thinking the Ottoman take back the Levant here which well they controlled. OOPPSS!

I can see them taking Kuwait. A small British concession to something that the German wanted or something.
 
What is known as the war guilt clause was in actuality, a legal procedure to secure reparations from the defeated Central Powers. With that in mind, I do think the Central Powers would attempt to blame Serbia and Russia as the principle ignitors of the war and therefore, demand reparations and even territory from them
Brest Litovsk was already outrageously harsh. How much more would they be able to get out of them?
 
Top