eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586 
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Nov 7, 2019 2:09:10 GMT
Here is an idea for a variant Versailles treaty: Germany is allowed to unite with Austria, but at the price of more territorial concessions for France and Poland. France gets Wallonia, Luxemburg, and Saar. The Netherlands gets the Flanders. Poland gets Upper Silesia and southern East Prussia, as well as a 99-year lease on the rest of East Prussia, including Danzig and Memel. Tyrol gets the same demilitarization regime as the Rhineland. Italy gets Fiume and part of Dalmatia. Success against the Germans makes the Poles bolder and overconfident against the Soviets, so they either a) claim a rather bigger slice of Belarus and Ukraine from the Soviets at the peace table, or b) totally screw their war performance, ending up conquered by the Red Army.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Nov 8, 2019 10:59:08 GMT
Why does the Netherlands get a piece of Belgium? Is Belgium broken up here between the Netherlands and France?
I cannot see why. The Dutch were neutral and Britain, thus her empire, went to war over the independence of Belgium.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Nov 8, 2019 11:55:26 GMT
Why does the Netherlands get a piece of Belgium? Is Belgium broken up here between the Netherlands and France? I cannot see why. The Dutch were neutral and Britain, thus her empire, went to war over the independence of Belgium.
Sounds very much like Belgium is split up which since Belgium was a valiant ally and the Dutch neutral does seem very unlikely. Also given the issue of French gains in the west of Luxumborg and the Saar - which the Germans definitely saw as theirs I would expect even more revanchist feeling in Germany. The situation in the east is likely to be explosive as a 99 year lease is going to be seen by most Germans as a permanent annexation. Gaining Austria would ease tensions a bit but makes Czechoslovakia very vulnerable.
I suspect from the last comment Eurofed is going to develop a greater preceived Soviet threat leading to some rapid agreement between Germany and the western powers that somehow sees them become friends and Germany regain most of its losses and more. He has a preference for wanking one or more powers into a continental hegemony that directly or indirectly controls everybody else.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 8, 2019 12:10:31 GMT
Why does the Netherlands get a piece of Belgium? Is Belgium broken up here between the Netherlands and France? I cannot see why. The Dutch were neutral and Britain, thus her empire, went to war over the independence of Belgium. At least it is not Belgium getting pieces of the Netherlands as what Belgium wanted in OTL. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Nov 8, 2019 12:15:22 GMT
Why does the Netherlands get a piece of Belgium? Is Belgium broken up here between the Netherlands and France? I cannot see why. The Dutch were neutral and Britain, thus her empire, went to war over the independence of Belgium. At least it is not Belgium getting pieces of the Netherlands as what Belgium wanted in OTL.
Was this the approaches to Antwerp to enable them to have maritime access without going through Dutch controlled waters? I can see that as a logical aim for them and also that the Netherlands wouldn't want to give up the region. Was this something that Belgium raised at Versailles and if so what were they offering in compensation?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 8, 2019 12:27:59 GMT
At least it is not Belgium getting pieces of the Netherlands as what Belgium wanted in OTL. Was this the approaches to Antwerp to enable them to have maritime access without going through Dutch controlled waters? I can see that as a logical aim for them and also that the Netherlands wouldn't want to give up the region. Was this something that Belgium raised at Versailles and if so what were they offering in compensation?
From a source on the net i get this: Belgium had claimed some 'border corrections' in order to get the country better defendable in future [the southern part of the Dutch province Limburg] and to open up Antwerp [Southern part of the province Zeeland: Zeeuws Vlaanderen]. The first demand was quite absurd and nothing more that plain imperialistically motivated, but the claim on Zeeuws-Vlaanderen was somewhat understandable. Indeed the large harbour of Antwerp was totally depending on the Dutch maintenance of the Westerschelde and Schelde mouth. And the competing largest harbour of Europe, Rotterdam, had every bit of interest not to facilitate Antwerp. Regarding this matter, the Belgian claim seemed fair. In the end the parties agreed - both under protest - to facilitate the Belgian economy by sealing a trade agreement, which also incorporated the expansion of canal routes to and from Belgian waters. In the end the Dutch would seriously stall the development of the agreement. The frail Belgian-Dutch relation had been smashed to pieces by the Belgian Versailles claims, not to improve very much in the years to come. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Nov 8, 2019 12:52:29 GMT
Was this the approaches to Antwerp to enable them to have maritime access without going through Dutch controlled waters? I can see that as a logical aim for them and also that the Netherlands wouldn't want to give up the region. Was this something that Belgium raised at Versailles and if so what were they offering in compensation?
From a source on the net i get this: Belgium had claimed some 'border corrections' in order to get the country better defendable in future [the southern part of the Dutch province Limburg] and to open up Antwerp [Southern part of the province Zeeland: Zeeuws Vlaanderen]. The first demand was quite absurd and nothing more that plain imperialistically motivated, but the claim on Zeeuws-Vlaanderen was somewhat understandable. Indeed the large harbour of Antwerp was totally depending on the Dutch maintenance of the Westerschelde and Schelde mouth. And the competing largest harbour of Europe, Rotterdam, had every bit of interest not to facilitate Antwerp. Regarding this matter, the Belgian claim seemed fair. In the end the parties agreed - both under protest - to facilitate the Belgian economy by sealing a trade agreement, which also incorporated the expansion of canal routes to and from Belgian waters. In the end the Dutch would seriously stall the development of the agreement. The frail Belgian-Dutch relation had been smashed to pieces by the Belgian Versailles claims, not to improve very much in the years to come.
OK thanks. The Limburg claim does sound pretty stupid but as it says something on the Zeeland region has some sense for Belgium. If they offered some appropriate compensation. However as it said Rotterdam had reasons to block it while it sounds like the Limburg idea poisoned the idea of a deal as well.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 8, 2019 13:07:11 GMT
From a source on the net i get this: Belgium had claimed some 'border corrections' in order to get the country better defendable in future [the southern part of the Dutch province Limburg] and to open up Antwerp [Southern part of the province Zeeland: Zeeuws Vlaanderen]. The first demand was quite absurd and nothing more that plain imperialistically motivated, but the claim on Zeeuws-Vlaanderen was somewhat understandable. Indeed the large harbour of Antwerp was totally depending on the Dutch maintenance of the Westerschelde and Schelde mouth. And the competing largest harbour of Europe, Rotterdam, had every bit of interest not to facilitate Antwerp. Regarding this matter, the Belgian claim seemed fair. In the end the parties agreed - both under protest - to facilitate the Belgian economy by sealing a trade agreement, which also incorporated the expansion of canal routes to and from Belgian waters. In the end the Dutch would seriously stall the development of the agreement. The frail Belgian-Dutch relation had been smashed to pieces by the Belgian Versailles claims, not to improve very much in the years to come. OK thanks. The Limburg claim does sound pretty stupid but as it says something on the Zeeland region has some sense for Belgium. If they offered some appropriate compensation. However as it said Rotterdam had reasons to block it while it sounds like the Limburg idea poisoned the idea of a deal as well.
Found something related to Belgium claim on the Netherlands: PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE, 1919, VOLUME III   |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Nov 8, 2019 15:04:57 GMT
Lordroel
Again thanks for the information. I think from that 3rd page there is some suggestion of giving the Netherlands parts of the neightbouring parts of the German coastline if I read it rightly? Possibly that's at least part of the possible compensation, although its likely to sour Dutch-German relations.
It does sound like Belgium screwed things up if it brought this up at the Peace Conference without 1st speaking to the Netherlands government. I suspect that the Netherlands, as a neutral, wasn't even at the conference? Although it does mention Hymans saying that the Dutch monarchy seemed acceptable to the idea of border changes, although whether this was actual or a favourable reading of some Dutch statement.
Had a look at the links but there doesn't to be an ability to see all the pages. For instance for Limburg the discussion is on pages 963-966 but only the edge pages, i,e, 963 and 966 are linked and you can't seem to look at pages 964 & 965. At least unless I'm missing something obvious.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 8, 2019 15:14:22 GMT
It does sound like Belgium screwed things up if it brought this up at the Peace Conference without 1st speaking to the Netherlands government.
Belgium was still angry about what it got after it gain Independence in 1834, also it believed that the Netherlands was not truly neutral enough, a example would be the kaiser now living in the Netherlands, also i think Belgium played the victim role in it believing that it could get anything it wanted due having sufferd so much. But i think we have derailed this thread a little bit to much now, so lets go back onto the track again. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Nov 8, 2019 16:40:03 GMT
In Watsonian terms, I had thought of a post-WWI partition of Belgium occurring as the result of rising ethnic polarization and strife between Flemish and Walloons, and France seizing this as an opportunity to promote rattachism at the peace table. This might happen due the Flamenpolitik of German occupation authorities turning out more successful than OTL. In addition, King Albert might die early and fail to turn out as a wartime heroic unifying figure, and his successor somehow becoming as controversial as Leopold III was during and after WWII (when the Royal Question became cause for serious strife for a while). As it concerns the British, I assume they would not oppose a partition of Belgium that occurs because of apparent domestic instability, as long as the Flemish ports stay out of French hands. In Doylist terms, I had thought out of the partition as a handy way to make France more satisfied about TTL peace deal w/o screwing up Germany too much. The likely alternative would be to fulfil French expansionist ambitions on the Rhineland, and I absolutely do not want to include or endorse it in the scenario. Losing Upper Silesia is already bad enough for the Germans, even with the gain of Austria. If you folks deem the scenario would work just the same politically without the partition of Belgium element, I am entirely willing to drop it.
|
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Nov 8, 2019 18:43:07 GMT
Why does the Netherlands get a piece of Belgium? Is Belgium broken up here between the Netherlands and France? I cannot see why. The Dutch were neutral and Britain, thus her empire, went to war over the independence of Belgium.
Sounds very much like Belgium is split up which since Belgium was a valiant ally and the Dutch neutral does seem very unlikely. Also given the issue of French gains in the west of Luxumborg and the Saar - which the Germans definitely saw as theirs I would expect even more revanchist feeling in Germany. The situation in the east is likely to be explosive as a 99 year lease is going to be seen by most Germans as a permanent annexation. Gaining Austria would ease tensions a bit but makes Czechoslovakia very vulnerable.
I suspect from the last comment Eurofed is going to develop a greater preceived Soviet threat leading to some rapid agreement between Germany and the western powers that somehow sees them become friends and Germany regain most of its losses and more. He has a preference for wanking one or more powers into a continental hegemony that directly or indirectly controls everybody else.
See my other post for the Belgium issue. As it concerns rump East Prussia, an alternative solution I had thought of would be to make all of it, not just Danzig, an autonomous exclave with Poland having access rights. Would that work better? Of course, if you ask my opinion, the Danzig Free Zone was an unnecessary overreach, and the Polish economic interests could be entirely fulfilled by giving them extraterritorial access to East Prussian ports under an international guarantee, but I dunno if that would be seen as sufficient at the peace table. What I am trying to do with this scenario is to come up with some kind of deal that would make the Entente swallow a democratic Anschluss without screwing up Germany too much, i.e. keeping the Rhineland out of French control, and not giving Poland an inch more of Silesia than what they stood to get IOTL. As it concerns Czechoslovakia's strategic vulnerability, they might lessen it substantially by lenghtening their fortification system to cover their southwestern border, too. Since the entire system had to be built from scratch anyway in 1919, I don't see the difficulty. As a matter of fact, I have left the scenario open as it concerns Poland between getting a more favorable eastern border (which admittably would make the likelihood of a M-R Pact deal greater in the long term) or getting swallowed by the Soviets. Admittably I have been quite fond of using a greater interwar Soviet threat as a handy way to foster Western-German reconciliation and the early rise of a federalizing EU/NATO system. Of course from my perspective timely reconciliation between the Western powers and a satisfied Germany can only be a very good thing, and European unity in a democratic federation pretty much the best thing that might happen to the continent in modern times given the current technological level. Having used the Soviet bogeyman trick to accomplish repeatedly in other TLs of mine, I did not try to make it a guaranteed outcome here, even if I think of it sufficiently likely to be mentioned as a possibility. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Nov 9, 2019 12:38:04 GMT
In Watsonian terms, I had thought of a post-WWI partition of Belgium occurring as the result of rising ethnic polarization and strife between Flemish and Walloons, and France seizing this as an opportunity to promote rattachism at the peace table. This might happen due the Flamenpolitik of German occupation authorities turning out more successful than OTL. In addition, King Albert might die early and fail to turn out as a wartime heroic unifying figure, and his successor somehow becoming as controversial as Leopold III was during and after WWII (when the Royal Question became cause for serious strife for a while). As it concerns the British, I assume they would not oppose a partition of Belgium that occurs because of apparent domestic instability, as long as the Flemish ports stay out of French hands. In Doylist terms, I had thought out of the partition as a handy way to make France more satisfied about TTL peace deal w/o screwing up Germany too much. The likely alternative would be to fulfil French expansionist ambitions on the Rhineland, and I absolutely do not want to include or endorse it in the scenario. Losing Upper Silesia is already bad enough for the Germans, even with the gain of Austria. If you folks deem the scenario would work just the same politically without the partition of Belgium element, I am entirely willing to drop it.
Personally I think its highly unlikely to occur. Albert had already made himself an herotic rallying factor for the allies by his determination to resist the German attack so that's unlikely to change even if he dies a lot earlier. Which is also likely to make him a martyr if he dies in some incident on/near the front line. Leopold III was only 17 when the war ended so is unlikely to have much power. Also with Belgium already committed to resistance and supported by Britain and France when he comes to power in TTL he's unlikely to support a Belgium capitulation.
Also given the iconic status of Belgium as a small power who gallantly and bravely resisted invasion and a brutal occupation it would be politically very difficult for Britain especially to agree to its destruction.
Probably an even greater problem is that it ignores the reason why France needed to "screw up Germany too much". That wasn't some deluded hatred but basic common sense. With Russia shattered by the war and the Bolsehvik dictatorship, which also made it a pariah and was to trigger an even more destructive civil war, the US retreating into isolationism and France itself exhausted the situation in Europe was highly unstable. Germany still had a largely unaffected industrial base and a markedly larger population as well as a sizeable element still committed to military expansion who would be upset by anything other than German domination of the continent. As such steps needed to be taken to weaken Germany in such a situation to prevent a new war. The OTL Versailles treaty, a bodged compromise as it was did manage to maintain the peace until there was no longer the desire to support it.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Nov 9, 2019 12:59:51 GMT
Sounds very much like Belgium is split up which since Belgium was a valiant ally and the Dutch neutral does seem very unlikely. Also given the issue of French gains in the west of Luxumborg and the Saar - which the Germans definitely saw as theirs I would expect even more revanchist feeling in Germany. The situation in the east is likely to be explosive as a 99 year lease is going to be seen by most Germans as a permanent annexation. Gaining Austria would ease tensions a bit but makes Czechoslovakia very vulnerable.
I suspect from the last comment Eurofed is going to develop a greater preceived Soviet threat leading to some rapid agreement between Germany and the western powers that somehow sees them become friends and Germany regain most of its losses and more. He has a preference for wanking one or more powers into a continental hegemony that directly or indirectly controls everybody else.
See my other post for the Belgium issue. As it concerns rump East Prussia, an alternative solution I had thought of would be to make all of it, not just Danzig, an autonomous exclave with Poland having access rights. Would that work better? Of course, if you ask my opinion, the Danzig Free Zone was an unnecessary overreach, and the Polish economic interests could be entirely fulfilled by giving them extraterritorial access to East Prussian ports under an international guarantee, but I dunno if that would be seen as sufficient at the peace table.
I think the basic problem was that there was no trust that Germany would keep to any agreement unless forced to. Its repeated beach of the Versailles treaty in the 1920's even before Hitler came to power shows that point had some merit.
As I said in my previous post the problem was a revanchist Germany in a Europe with a serious imbalance of power.
To a degree and part of the problem in 1938, other than its desertion by the western powers was that Czechoslovakia's defence was undermined by the recent annexation of Austria to the 3rd Reich. However even through building such defensives along the border with Austria as well in the 20's is possible it will cost more money as well as need extra troops compared to OTL and still leaves the core of the country effectively a salient surrounded on three sides by Germany. As long as the latter is hostile and revanchist Czechoslovakia is going to be vulnerable without strong allies. Having an also hostile Hungary to the south makes this even worse.
A more successful Poland is possible but would cause it more problems with even greater numbers of non-Poles, albeit that a different policy and the brutal treatment of the population in the USSR could make this a benefit rather than a burden. However its never going to have the prolonged military capacity of the Soviet empire and as you say its likely to be back-stabbed by a revanchist Germany at some point. Also such a scenario is likely to reduce the fear that the Soviets pose in the eyes of the rest of Europe and hence the likelihood of a reconciliation between Germany and the western powers.
The Polish screwed alternative can do something along this line as it puts Germany right on the front line against the Soviets and hence a great pressure to come to terms with the western powers. However it does put a lot more people under Soviet rule and you still can't rule out a German military revanchist movement.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Nov 18, 2019 1:54:15 GMT
Here is an idea for a variant Versailles treaty: Germany is allowed to unite with Austria, but at the price of more territorial concessions for France and Poland. France gets Wallonia, Luxemburg, and Saar. The Netherlands gets the Flanders. Poland gets Upper Silesia and southern East Prussia, as well as a 99-year lease on the rest of East Prussia, including Danzig and Memel. Tyrol gets the same demilitarization regime as the Rhineland. Italy gets Fiume and part of Dalmatia. Success against the Germans makes the Poles bolder and overconfident against the Soviets, so they either a) claim a rather bigger slice of Belarus and Ukraine from the Soviets at the peace table, or b) totally screw their war performance, ending up conquered by the Red Army. Completely and utterly impossible. |
|
