WI: Germany seeks peace in the West after Brest-Litovsk

You didn't address the rest of my comment: France was apparently very positive towards Finland's independence, actually rushing to recognize it. In early January, it all was practically a matter between the Finnish Senate and Lenin et al. in Petrograd. There were no German troops in Finland, and wouldn't be until months later.

So, I think it is hard to see France telling the Bolsheviks that no, you can't recognize Finland, when they IOTL wanted to recognize Finland themselves as well even before the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. It appears to me that France did not see the matter of Finland as a bargaining chip to be used to address issues on the Western front.
I didn't address it because it was a non-essential part of my argument; it's not what you limit in the east that matters, it's that you do. You make an excellent argument why Finland doesn't make a bargaining chip, but maybe the reparations or Ukraine can be.

The problem is that for a credible possibility that a peace offer can be at least heared by the entente goverment the Germans need to give up something, as a status quo ante situation in the west cannot be accepted, as it mean long term german domination and immediate revolution.
But there's no way the Germans can give something up in Western Europe while they've the apparent upper hand there; they can bargain that upper hand away for peace, but giving up lands held by Germans when they've just beaten Russia and so have a apparent temporary chance of victory makes it seem crazy to think they'd offer this. Losing the colonies, fine, they lost those; less gains in the east, well, the blockade does hurt. But giving up a part of Germany itself when they're (sort of) winning?
 
But there's no way the Germans can give something up in Western Europe while they've the apparent upper hand there; they can bargain that upper hand away for peace, but giving up lands held by Germans when they've just beaten Russia and so have a apparent temporary chance of victory makes it seem crazy to think they'd offer this. Losing the colonies, fine, they lost those; less gains in the east, well, the blockade does hurt. But giving up a part of Germany itself when they're (sort of) winning?

Well, it was the same way of thinking of OTL and had not done to them a lot of good; for this reason one of the must it's that in Germany there is in charge someone with working brain cells; there need two to play a tango and the Entente just receiving the german colonies and with north France and Belgium destroyed while Germany had the all of can eat buffet in the east will mean that any goverment that had accepted such term will last phisically one or two second; and no, some concession in east europe will not work as are useless for the population of Italy, France and UK and frankly are less worth of the ink used to wrote them.
 
The Entente is not going to accept any reasonable German offer immediately after Brest Litovsk.

Though the offer might still be worth making, even if (especially if?) it was certain to be rejected.

If British soldiers know that Jerry has offered to pull out of France and Belgium - the points over which Britain was (ostensibly) fighting, but are then told they must go on getting killed to win Strasbourg back for the Froggies (or for something even more remote in the east) that could do serious damage to morale. It would certainly make Haig's words about "believing in the justice of our coause, every one of us must fight to the end" sound distinctly hollow. Might make the difference between winning or losing in the March/April battles.
 
Well, it was the same way of thinking of OTL and had not done to them a lot of good; for this reason one of the must it's that in Germany there is in charge someone with working brain cells; there need two to play a tango and the Entente just receiving the german colonies and with north France and Belgium destroyed while Germany had the all of can eat buffet in the east will mean that any goverment that had accepted such term will last phisically one or two second; and no, some concession in east europe will not work as are useless for the population of Italy, France and UK and frankly are less worth of the ink used to wrote them.
Those two parts seem contradictory; if the British/French public don't care about East Europe, they don't care; if they do care, concessions in the east have value.

And besides, the whole point is to use the window of opportunity where Germany seems to be winning (or at least on the route to victory). That's why you must make an offer that seems nice to the British/French in that regard (i.e. not a clear loss) while also being acceptable to the Germans (i.e. also not a clear loss). Losing Elzass-Lothringen in exchange for the freedom of the Poles from Russia sounds like a clear loss for the Germans to me.
 
Those two parts seem contradictory; if the British/French public don't care about East Europe, they don't care; if they do care, concessions in the east have value.

They don't care having some meager concession on that side while Germany get everything else and even that kind of concession are just at the goodwill of Germany and are basically worthless; all that while they directly obtain only to get back the territory invaded by the Germans that they have basically razed.

And besides, the whole point is to use the window of opportunity where Germany seems to be winning (or at least on the route to victory). That's why you must make an offer that seems nice to the British/French in that regard (i.e. not a clear loss) while also being acceptable to the Germans (i.e. also not a clear loss). Losing Elzass-Lothringen in exchange for the freedom of the Poles from Russia sounds like a clear loss for the Germans to me.

Sure, the offer need to be nice for France and UK, that offer it's not; France will be devastated for nothing and a shadow of herself as Italy and with no gain; why anykind of goverment with some functioning brain cells will accept this kind of offer? It's just short of surrender, better go down fighting and frankly accepting this 'generous offer' mean shouting pubblically: Please start a revolution we are not worthy. Sure losing part of Alsace-Lorraine it will be a loss...amply recoupled by taking over the rest of continent, and you don't free the Poles from the Russian, you obtain a Polish puppet state that you will drain as you wish better be honest.

In poor words, status quo ante it's not for the Entente a clear loss but more a catastrophic event, so if someone activate his brain in Berlin and understand that they need to give up something of concrete to at least let the Entente leaderships save face a peace proposal can have a possibility, otherwise, why the Entente need to accept, just to enter in the German sphere a little later than the rest of the continent?

Just to make an example: Germany offered to Italy, after Caporetto basically a white peace, IRC just the demilitarization of the border, no reparation, etc. etc. but the goverment refused because they know that once accepted their days (and i mean the liberal state) will be numbered and in any case the continent will be in German hands so their independence in the end will be very limited
 
How is it that in every thread like this one people keep insisting that Germany offering up Alsace-Lorraine is somehow "sensible"? It is exactly the opposite. Someone mentioned that Entente goverments would last mere hours after accepting some of the suggested peace deals... how long do you think the German one would last if they offered up Alsace-Lorraine to the French? It's a non-starter, and no one in their right mind would suggest it.
 
Last edited:
The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk would be hard to enforce even in the optimal circumstances.

In the best post-WWI scenario for Germany, they would struggle anyway to keep this newly acquired sphere of influence under the great pressure of the Soviets, anti-German nationalists, Republicans etc etc. I think it would only endure with a proper integration at any level (sort of confederation, better if it goes Republican in some years) which could bring safety, stability and prosperity to every member, not only Germany.

However, any step towards a major integration or a perceived entity of 'hyper-Germany' would be, sooner than later, contested by the USSR, France, UK and so.
 
How is it that in every thread like this one people keep insisting that Germany offering up Alsace-Lorraine is somehow "sensible"? It is exactly the opposite. Someone mentioned that Entente goverments would last mere hours after accepting some of the suggested peace deals... how long do you think the German one would last if they offered up Alsace-Lorraine to the French? It's a non-starter, and no one in their right mind would suggest it.

This is the big problem with any compromise peace scenario. As the late AJP Taylor put it "What was compromise for one side represented defeat for the other". Neither could accept even the other's "compromise" unless/until it was clearly losing, and then the compromise would no longer be on offer.
 

The Avenger

Banned
The Entente is not going to accept any reasonable German offer immediately after Brest Litovsk.
The Germans could say that they merely did to the Russians what the Entente wants to do to them, though--specifically strip them of their majority-minority territories.
 

The Avenger

Banned
For some time, I've wondered about another scenario. What if, before the war, Germany offered to return Alsace-Lorraine to France in exchange for a mutual nonaggression pact and guarantees that no British or other foreign troops be allowed on its soil. Might that have led to German dominance in the East?
You'd have to include a scrapping of the Franco-Russian alliance. After all, Germany has to give Alsace-Lorraine up for something very significant--such as a free hand in the East in any war with Russia.
 
You'd have to include a scrapping of the Franco-Russian alliance. After all, Germany has to give Alsace-Lorraine up for something very significant--such as a free hand in the East in any war with Russia.


Yes of course. The key question is, would such a German overture have actually worked?
 
Yes of course. The key question is, would such a German overture have actually worked?
I think not; neither side really trusts the other, so the Germans will fear the French using it as staging ground for an offensive once the Germans inevitably bog down in the east (it might be a year or two, but Russia's not going down in that timeframe - probably) and the French will fear the Germans will come back to reclaim it once they're done fighting Russia.

Plus, of course, the French will have rather openly stabbed Russia in the back out of greed, so they have additional incentive to attack again, showing Russia 'look it was a ploy not a stab in the back!'.
 
I think not; neither side really trusts the other, so the Germans will fear the French using it as staging ground for an offensive once the Germans inevitably bog down in the east (it might be a year or two, but Russia's not going down in that timeframe - probably) and the French will fear the Germans will come back to reclaim it once they're done fighting Russia.

But couldn't Germany have beaten Russia quickly without a western front? Of course they'd have to leave some troops in the west, just in case...but progress in the East could've been fast. Even in the OTL look at Tannenburg. What if they could've better followed up something like that? IIRC it was said that they could've ended the eastern war in 1916 had they committed the troops they wasted at Verdun. What if the bulk of the army was already there in 1914?

Plus, of course, the French will have rather openly stabbed Russia in the back out of greed, so they have additional incentive to attack again, showing Russia 'look it was a ploy not a stab in the back!'.

But if the French see an opportunity to get and keep what they want without a fight, why engage in a risky conflict? What if the available defenses hold up the French until German reinforcements pour in from the east? And if they treacherously attacked after getting such a great concession, who would trust them again?
While some in the French government would clamor for an attack, others would urge caution. A democracy just can't decide on policy as fast as an authoritarian state. It's possible the French would drag their heels until Germany won in the east, then dropped the plan.
 
Ironically I can more easily see Germany forgoing territory than France, France had developed its war aims to be the reconquest of A-L, in effect it was the definition of victory. And although Germany had occupied a large swath of France, I do not see keeping it as a certain war aim or definition of victory. Indemnity and colonial concessions can dislodge Germany, France must actually win to get more than a status quo border, Germany must face certain defeat or revolution before it can concede A-L. So I think you need Germany poised for victory but no longer certain as the economy stalls, home front unrest increases and the will to push over the top falters. And you need someone to recognize the moment you do not call a bluff but take the winning you have.

To get at least closer I would have a better Eastern front war and a separate peace from Russia after 1916 closes, likely on some natural line running Riga to Minsk to Kiev, with a more rational armistice that seeks to restore trade and carve out logical buffer states in the Baltic, Belarus and western Ukraine at most. If the USA is not coming we might have a 1917 western front more like 1918 with Germany mounting offensives to achieve victory, Britain will be shouldering the financial burden, France will bleed to defend but the pressure to get peace will be there. Assuming the offensive drives gain to little you can get out of that a plausible stalemate. I think Germany will not see enough food from Russia quickly enough to continue, France will have mutinies if it tries any offensives, Britain will be looking for a way to get out and curb the Germans before they get a run away victory. A very delicate balancing act with all plates spinning. We just need some moderates to push past the now ossified winner take all positions in London, Paris and Berlin.
 

The Avenger

Banned
But couldn't Germany have beaten Russia quickly without a western front? Of course they'd have to leave some troops in the west, just in case...but progress in the East could've been fast. Even in the OTL look at Tannenburg. What if they could've better followed up something like that? IIRC it was said that they could've ended the eastern war in 1916 had they committed the troops they wasted at Verdun. What if the bulk of the army was already there in 1914?

To win in the East in WWI, Germany'd probably have to advance slowly to avoid getting overextended. Perhaps capture Poland, Lithuania, and Courland in year 1, capture Ukraine, Belarus, Livonia, and Estonia in year 2, and capture Petrograd and Moscow in year 3.

But if the French see an opportunity to get and keep what they want without a fight, why engage in a risky conflict?

Exactly! Why risk losing Alsace-Lorraine again after having just reacquired it? It makes no sense!

What if the available defenses hold up the French until German reinforcements pour in from the east? And if they treacherously attacked after getting such a great concession, who would trust them again?

Bingo!

Such a move could result in France losing A-L again and losing the lives of a lot of its young men. Plus, as you said, who is going to trust the French again after that? Heck, if Germany beats both France and Russia, it could really cripple France this time around--stripping it of A-L, Briey, Longwy, and perhaps some additional territories--in order to really punish France for stabbing it in the back.

While some in the French government would clamor for an attack, others would urge caution. A democracy just can't decide on policy as fast as an authoritarian state. It's possible the French would drag their heels until Germany won in the east, then dropped the plan.

Agreed.

Also, please note that France had the ability to end its alliance with Russia whenever it wished. It's not like it was eternally bound by this alliance.

If France would have gotten a good enough deal in exchange for ending its Russian alliance, it could've taken it.
 
Last edited:
The Germans could say that they merely did to the Russians what the Entente wants to do to them, though--specifically strip them of their majority-minority territories.
That would make no difference. The one thing the Germans have going for them in holding onto the East is, "It's us, or it's the Bolsheviks".
 
To win in the East in WWI, Germany'd probably have to advance slowly to avoid getting overextended. Perhaps capture Poland, Lithuania, and Courland in year 1, capture Ukraine, Belarus, Livonia, and Estonia in year 2, and capture Petrograd and Moscow in year 3.


If the objective was not to overrun Russia as far as Moscow but just to beat Russia sufficiently to get a peace like Brest-Livovsk in the OTL, might that have taken only a year or two (assuming no western front)?
 
Top