WW1: CP decide it's best to give up

Imajin said:
I don't know if A-H would give up so much to satisfy Italy- certainly they wouldn't give up Trieste without a major fight, since most of their shipbuilding ability was based there. (And without it, the Austro-Hungarian Navy would be even worse!)

OTL they did not: all the negotiations in 1914 and early 1915 never reached any conclusion. And here in a way it would be even worse, because Italy would become able to close up the Adriatic. Otoh, A-H would enjoy a very strong position in the Balkans (enjoy might not be the right word, since the key word is "Balkans").

Mind, I said that I was almost convinced that an appeasement was impossible (and I believe that A-H and France would be the most obdurate).
WW1 goes on, up to the end in 1918. My (unlikely) scenario was just an attempt of changing what happened.
 
Actually, Austria-Hungary might not be as obdurate as you think- Emperor Karl did try to make secret peace plans, but all that did was France revealed them and embarassed A-H to it's ally... However, as Trieste is the major port city, and A-H would already be likely concedeing Italian Tyrol, Albania, and possibly Friuli to Italy (those I can see, though reluctantly), they'd balk at having to give up the city...
 
Imajin said:
Definately not Bulgaria... has Greece entered the war yet? I suppose it doesn't matter- Denmark never joined the war but got S-H...
Well, unless we're definitely going with a 1916 date of peace, we could have the peace agreed to before Bulgaria enters. Or perhaps the POD affects them entering the war? I almost like the idea of them getting alot of Euro Turkey, but perhaps Greece getting the Dardanelles...
 
There is something which does not add up, from my understanding of most of the posts here. For most of the war, the CP had better short-term expectations than the Entente (the long-term perspective is more difficult to assess: it depends on the timing and the specifics of the Russian collapse, and on the timing of USA entrance in the war. IMHO, the former will happen in any case if the war drags on; the latter is much more doubtful since it depends on whom might be elected in 1916, and on the mood of American public). There is not a chance that the CP throw in the towel and accept a defeat (Germany did not do it completely even in November 1918).

So there is no point in discussing the carving of the Ottoman Empire, or the appetites of Russia. Either the Entente and the CP find a non-unsatisfactory appeasement after the bloodbaths of 1915-1916, or the war is going to continue. But remember that in 1916 (and obviously in 1917) the CP smell a victory on the wind.
If the chancelleries of the Powers hammer out an acceptable compromise, some of the small players will foot the bill (Serbia, Romania). Russia is in a very bad situation, and cannot be too choosy. We are back again to A-H and France: maybe the POD could be Karl, having a vision and realising that the war is going to destroy the empire in any case [it is doubtful that upon his accession to the throne he might be so decisive, though]. Or the Czar sueing for peace earlier [or the Entente realising which is the true situation in Russia, which they did not want to perceive. The British were convinced that the assassination of Rasputin was all that was needed to compact the Russians behind their Czar].
 
luakel said:
Well, unless we're definitely going with a 1916 date of peace, we could have the peace agreed to before Bulgaria enters. Or perhaps the POD affects them entering the war? I almost like the idea of them getting alot of Euro Turkey, but perhaps Greece getting the Dardanelles...

Bulgaria entered the war in October 1915, just brought in for the final offensive against Serbia.

Greece entered the war in 1917 (when the Entente landed at Salonika, and opened the southern Balkan front, Venizelos - the Greek PM - was supportive, but king Constantine and the army were pro-Germans, and Venizelos had to resign, even if the Entente troops remained).

This means that Bulgaria gets Macedonia from Serbia, and Greece gets nothing if there is a peace in 1916. Actually, they are lucky if the get back Salonika and Corfu (also the island was occupied by Italo-french in January 1916, as a logistic basis for the evacuation of the Serbian army, and to bottle completely the Adriatic)
 
Imajin said:
Actually, Austria-Hungary might not be as obdurate as you think- Emperor Karl did try to make secret peace plans, but all that did was France revealed them and embarassed A-H to it's ally... However, as Trieste is the major port city, and A-H would already be likely concedeing Italian Tyrol, Albania, and possibly Friuli to Italy (those I can see, though reluctantly), they'd balk at having to give up the city...

Trieste was a sore point, I know. Maybe a compromise in Dalmatia might be reached. I remember Karl's peace plan, but I am not sure on what kind of backing he would get for it internally: his peace proposal is dated february 1917, and he had been on the throne for a mere 3 months [another interesting thing I read about Karl is that he opposed the passage of the infamous "Lenin train" through A-H. The fact that France leaked the proposal is another proof that they did not want a negotiated peace (or maybe were afraid to be let alone to confront Germany)
 
Wendell said:
I would expect that the Germans will gain some land in Poland...
If they are smart enough, they will be more than happy to take the Grand duchy of warsaw from Russia, and to set up a puppet polish state.
 
LordKalvan said:
If they are smart enough, they will be more than happy to take the Grand duchy of warsaw from Russia, and to set up a puppet polish state.

Most likely they would do so, and perhaps also begin "encouraging" emigration of their own polish population to the new Polish rump state.

A compromise peace is going to be difficult, mostly because neither side was really ready to accept anything less than victory, which both sides felt was still achievable.

In OTL the Central Powers did pretty much ask for peace as soon as it became clear they could no longer win, it is worth pointing out that for the first three years the war was going slightly in favour of the Germans. The Western Front was largely stagnant, but the frontline was in France, not Germany. Russia was losing ground and becoming unstable, and the Balkans were largely under CP control. I would think a compromise peace would have to slightly favour the CP, something the Entente will not accept.

My guess at the terms, Russia loses the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, and depending on when the treaty is made possibly the Baltic states as well. Serbia (and if applicable Romania) suffer a few minor border adjustments, and have Austro-German puppet governments installed. If Italy joins and Caporetto has not happened expect a status quo peace, otherwise Italy will have to pay reparations and perhaps renounce some of their claims. Depending on how many of the colonies are occupied (Tanganyika never fell, and as I recall GSW Africa and Cameroon held out for a while) there is probably some exchange of occupied France and Belgium for the occupied colonies, and possibly border adjustments in Germany's favour. Japan keeps their gains in the Pacific, but probably gives Germany a small token payment so that the Germans can save face. The Ottomans likely give up Palestine and their Red Sea territories, but unless it is fairly late in the warI doubt Britain has the leverage to take Iraq, or France Syria and Lebanon.
 
The Entente will have trouble wanting to come to the peace table because they're not quite at the breaking point yet. But if you have Russia drop out of the war in 1916, you may get the Entente to the peace table out of fear of all those Germans on the Eastern Front coming west.

Points:
-Russia is a big loser in this case. The Duchy of Warsaw will be carved off and a Kingdom of Poland will be established. The Baltic States may be given independence as well, but probably not Finland. The Germans may demand an independent Ukraine and Finland, but they're not in the position of total victory. Japan may also take the opportunity to demand North Sakhalin Island, but I doubt they'll get it.
-Italy is allowed to retain its pre-1915 borders and colonies. Status quo applies.
-Japan is likely to keep captured German colonies.
-Germany will likely get Luxembourg for its troubles. Togoland and SW Africa will be lost, but they'll be allowed to keep Tanganyika. Maybe they'll be allowed to annex the Belgian Congo as a trade for its other two African colonies?
-France gets Togoland. It doesn't get Alsace-Lorraine back, so the French will likely be pissed. However Russia not wanting to continue the war makes them swallow this bitter pill.
-The United Kingdom gets Southwest Africa from Germany.
-Belgium is restored and Germany agrees to pay reparations to Belgium, though they are nowhere near as steep as the Versailles requirements.
-The Ottoman Empire is not broken up. I'd say they get the Kars-Ardahan area from Russia, but only if they're lucky.
-Serbia remains independent. Macedonia gets ceded to Bulgaria.
-Status quo is retained for Rumania.

The peace looks good on paper, but it's likely to ruffle a few more feathers. The French still want Alsace-Lorraine back. Russia needs to catch up with the West again. The Ottoman Empire gets a breath of fresh air simply because no one could agree on how to partition it. Italy is highly pissed at the status quo peace, but is really in no position to make more demands.
 
Most of the posts demonstrate why there were no serious peace discussions during WW1: it was a comedy of errors, and by 1917 it clearly became unpossible to get to a peace table.
Let's review the peace overtures:
  • December 1916: Wilson proposes a peace. The Entente is unanimous in rejecting this attempt (notwithstanding the collapse of Serbia, and the difficult situation on the Russian front). Germany formally accepts, but at the same time steps up the submarine attacks, and sends the infamous Zimmermann telegram to Mexico. Chances: 0%
  • February 1917: Kaiser Karl probes again, without a previous agreement with Germany. France scuttles the new try by making it public. Chances: 0%
  • August 1917: the Pope proposes a peace "without reparations and without annexations". This time the first to refuse is Wilson (!). Chances 0%
Neither the Entente nor the CP ever negotiated in good faith (the only possible exception might have been Kaiser Karl, but it was a unilateral attempt, without any previous coordination with Germany).
France was always quite adamant in refusing. Same thing with Italy: there never was any wavering even in the wake of Caporetto (and before that, the front was in Austrian territory, not viceversa).
Same thing with Russia too. It's the old story: the strategic depths of Russia is such that it cannot be forced to peace without a collapse. Even after the Czar abdication, the Kerenski government did not modify this stand.
After the u-boat sinkings and the Zimmermann telegram, it was quite clear that the USA would have entered the war on the Entente side (the diplomatic relations with Germany were broken in Jan 1917).
It is quite difficult to find a middle ground between someone who looks west (the Entente) and is convinced that it is a matter of time, and someone who looks east (the CP) and is also convinced that the war will be won.
 
Ace Venom said:
. Togoland and SW Africa will be lost, but they'll be allowed to keep Tanganyika. Maybe they'll be allowed to annex the Belgian Congo as a trade for its other two African colonies?

By that time, the Belgians occupy the western half of Tanganyika, and have captured the capital of Tabora. Do you really think they'd just leave Congo?
 
LordKalvan does have it pretty much right, as long as both sides feel that they stand a very good chance of victory a negotiated peace is unlikely. As soon as it became undeniable that Germany could not win the war (stab in the back myths aside) the government sought out a negotiated peace based on the Wilson's 14 points proposal.

benedict XVII: Well, seeing as the homeland was under German occupation I would imagine the Germans have a fair bit of negotiating leverage. I doubt it would be enough to take all of the Belgian Congo, but I would think it would gain them some concessions.

Question: Why is it that so many of the proposed peace terms involve German concessions to the Western Allies, even though they were in a stronger position? Why would Germany give up the negotiating leverage of the occupied areas of France and Belgium, and actually pay reparations to them?
 
Chengar Qordath said:
Question: Why is it that so many of the proposed peace terms involve German concessions to the Western Allies, even though they were in a stronger position? Why would Germany give up the negotiating leverage of the occupied areas of France and Belgium, and actually pay reparations to them?

Because if they don't (as they refused to do in OTL) the war goes on, as in OTL, and ends in the same way. It is the difference between the Entente and the CP in terms of strategic position: the CP have (theoretically) acquired vast resources and have increased substantially the population of their sphere of influence with the successes in the Balkans and against Russia; these resources (manpower, foodstuff, strategic materials) are not immediately available, and require major investments in terms of time and money. The Entente has acquired at the beginning of 1917 a very valuable ally, the USA. Their resources of manpower, industrial goods, foodstuff are immediately available (or are in any case available in a very short time: the troops must be trained and sent overseas).
The Germans should try and close the best deal that they can: if they don't, every month will steeply increase the price. So the best they can do is satisfy the most dangerous opponents (France, UK, Italy), try to suck up to Wilson (self-determination) and have the guys who cannot refuse foot the bill (Russia, Serbia, Romania, the Ottomans). If necessary, they must sacrifice A-H too, for the ultimate good of the Reich. Was there a politician in Germany long-sighted and visionary enough to make this analysis? Would he have been in the position to sell it to the Kaiser and to the generals? IMO, the answer is certainly no to the latter question, maybe to the former one. I have wondered if the peace ouverture made by Karl was stemming out of good sentiments, a cold analysis or a combination of the two.
 
benedict XVII said:
By that time, the Belgians occupy the western half of Tanganyika, and have captured the capital of Tabora. Do you really think they'd just leave Congo?

Belgium is for all intents and purposes occupied by Germany. I personally see no reason why the British would allow Germany to annex part of Belgium. Britain doesn't want a peace where Germany controls any ports near the English Channel.

On the other hand, Germany has taken a prestige blow in the Pacific and in Africa. Germany has a favorable negotiating position to get concessions from Belgium. The Germans can say, "Okay, we'll leave Belgium and respect their neutrality in the future, but we do deserve some spoils here." Belgium is quite likely to get the shaft here. So the reparations agreement allows Belgium to save some sort of face for "selling" the Congo to Germany.

On the other hand, I have trouble believing you could get Germany to agree to any form of reparations to France. Unlike Belgium, Germany had a reason to go to war with France. They could very easily have fought a defensive war in Alsace-Lorraine, but they decided to attempt to go for the jugular. So France gets Togoland in compensation, which isn't that much. But with my idea of Russia dropping out making France more agreeable to peace talks, it probably would fit.

Germany should get preferential treatment in peace talks since the Central Powers are negotiating from the side of victory.
 
Ace Venom said:
Belgium is for all intents and purposes occupied by Germany. I personally see no reason why the British would allow Germany to annex part of Belgium. Britain doesn't want a peace where Germany controls any ports near the English Channel.

On the other hand, Germany has taken a prestige blow in the Pacific and in Africa. Germany has a favorable negotiating position to get concessions from Belgium. The Germans can say, "Okay, we'll leave Belgium and respect their neutrality in the future, but we do deserve some spoils here." Belgium is quite likely to get the shaft here. So the reparations agreement allows Belgium to save some sort of face for "selling" the Congo to Germany.

But if the Belgians say "No, we do not give up Congo", do you really think the Brits, French and Americans could go back to their public opinions and say: "OK, we drop te Belgians, then..."? Aside from this, the Belgians still hold a critical piece of the front, and giving them an incentive not to fight anymore before an Armistice has been signed could be pretty bad for the Allies... Would Germany really want to prolongue the war for Congo, if it can already be promised the evacuation of East Africa?
 
I could see a further compromise where the Germans are granted Katanga Province and leave the rest of the Congo to Belgium.
 
benedict XVII said:
But if the Belgians say "No, we do not give up Congo", do you really think the Brits, French and Americans could go back to their public opinions and say: "OK, we drop te Belgians, then..."? Aside from this, the Belgians still hold a critical piece of the front, and giving them an incentive not to fight anymore before an Armistice has been signed could be pretty bad for the Allies... Would Germany really want to prolongue the war for Congo, if it can already be promised the evacuation of East Africa?
Benedict, I think that it's likely that, if needed, Belgium will be the fall man for the Allies. After all, they're going to be telling the Belgians "Hey, you're getting your homeland back, so don't make it harder on yourself and just give the Germans what they want". And at this point, with Russia out, and the other 2/3 of the Big Three wanting a peace, I don't think Belgium's concerns in the matter will worry Britain and France, since they did free the country after all.
 
Top