Discussion:
What would you do differently at Versailles in 1919?
Add Reply
WolfBear
2017-08-08 01:29:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
If you were in complete control of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, what exactly would you do differently?

As for me:

1. Make reparations based on the amount of damage that countries who were occupied by the Central Powers during WWI (such as France, Belgium, Serbia, and Romania) suffered. Also, avoid giving any reparations to countries who weren't occupied by the Central Powers during WWI. Also, no war guilt clause.
2. Germany is allowed to annex Austria, the Sudetenland, and South Tyrol (I'm sympathetic to Italy's security argument, but its poor treatment of the South Tyrolese Germans for the next 50 years in our TL disqualifies Italy from acquiring South Tyrol) in 1919.
3. A plebiscite is held in Eupen-Malmedy to determine its fate.
4. Instead of Czechoslovakia, separate Czech and Slovak states are created.
5. Separate Croatian and Slovenian states are created in the parts of Yugoslavia (in our TL) where those two groups are a majority of the population. Also, Montenegro keeps its independence. Bosnia and the other territories still become a part of Yugoslavia, though.
6. A nominally independent Kurdistan (as a British League of Nations Mandate) is created out of the Kurdish-majority parts of Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.
7. Hungary gets to keep the Hungarian-majority areas which are located right outside of its 1920 Trianon borders in our TL.
8. Poland gets Danzig, all of Upper Silesia, and southern East Prussia (with no plebiscites anywhere there) while losing its eastern territories with large numbers of Ukrainians and Belarusians (these territories go to the Soviet Union). Basically, Germany is going to be ungrateful in any case and thus should lose as much territory as possible in the East while the Soviet Union is going to get a poison pill due to its annexation of territories filled with Ukrainian nationalists in this TL (as intended; after all, I want Ukrainian nationalists to eventually bring down the Soviet Union and deliver national self-determination for its various SSRs).
9. In the Middle East, a separate, nominally independent (but under a French LoN mandate) Alawite state is created in coastal Syria while the rest of Syria--along with the Sunni Arab-majority parts of Iraq--is annexed to (Trans-)Jordan (nominally independent but under a British LoN mandate). Indeed, hopefully the Hashemites are more capable of keeping Islamist extremists in check than the Assad family was; plus, with the Sunni Arab-majority parts of Iraq a part of Greater Syria, people like Saddam Hussein wouldn't be able to cause trouble in Iraq.
10. Bulgaria is allowed to keep a small strip of territory which allows it to have continued access to the Aegean Sea. Greece annexes the rest of this territory, though.
11. A commission is established to investigate whether or not any borders need to be redrawn in the West's current colonies in order to more closely adhere to the principles of national self-determination. If it is discovered that some colonial borders need to be redrawn in order to more closely adhere to this principle, these borders should be redrawn as soon as possible.
12. Sweden acquires the Aland Islands.
13. China acquires both Qingdao and Shandong.

Anyway, what exactly am I missing and/or forgetting here?

Also, any thoughts on what I wrote here?
Rich Rostrom
2017-08-08 07:31:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
If you were in complete control of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference,
What exactly does that mean? That I can dictate terms to all the
delegates, who will accept them, and their home governments will
also accept my terms? Or do I only control the "work product" of
the peace conference, and that ratification will have to be
talked for?
Post by WolfBear
what exactly would you do differently?
I would make _certain_ there won't be another war...

I would establish the World Peace Authority, to be
jointly administered by the US, Britain, France, and
Japan (the Powers). The rest of the world will be
told - "We are in charge."

None of the defeated Central Powers or the newly
established countries in Europe and the Near East, and
in the former Russian Empire shall have armed forces.
The WPA will provide national security for them with
the Peace Legion. They will be expected to contribute
funding and volunteer manpower for the Peace Legion,
which however will be commanded by officers seconded
from the Powers (All generals and colonels; also,
initially majors and captains. And volunteers from the
Powers may also enlist - including men from colonial
territories, on the same terms. There are gobs of
out-of-work Great War veterans to recruit.)

The Powers will provide air and naval force as needed;
also artillery and tanks will be manned exclusively by
volunteers from the Powers.

The WPA explicitly disclaims any interest in the
domestic political and economic system of any country.
Any protected country is free to have Red Socialism,
or monarchy, or vegetarian theocracy, if they choose,
but they can't have an army.

The WPA also recognizes the paramount position of the
Powers in their spheres of influence. There will be no
pretense that the US doesn't dominate Central America,
that Japan doesn't run East Asia, or that France and
Britain don't have their own zones.

Later on, arms restrictions for all non-Power
countries that have their own armed forces: no tanks,
no artillery larger than 3", no armed aircraft, no
warships over 2,000 tons, or submersible, or armed
with torpedoes or guns larger than 4". (That will be
privately agreed to by the Powers immediately;
enforcing it will come later.)

If the four Great Powers stand together... there is no
one who can effectively oppose this program. And once
it is in place, no one could overthrow it.

There is the question of whether Japan can be truly
incorporated, and not go mad-dog militarist. I think
that recognition as a peer by the other Great Powers
would go a long way to keeping Japan on the rails.
As LBJ once said of a maverick politico, better to
have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the
tent pissing in.

I haven't bothered with any of the details of the
post- war territorial settlement. There are a few
tweaks from OTL that are worthwhile, but not
important. The big thing is to establish a New World
Order, with muscle to sustain itself. The rest is
trivia.

The key thing is to recognize that "international
opinion" is almost impotent; the Order must be based
on the nations with power to enforce it, and must be
realistic about the interests of those nations, and
must be universal - no country left outside to build
up a threat.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2017-08-08 15:50:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
If you were in complete control of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference,
What exactly does that mean? That I can dictate terms to all the
delegates, who will accept them, and their home governments will
also accept my terms? Or do I only control the "work product" of
the peace conference, and that ratification will have to be
talked for?
Post by WolfBear
what exactly would you do differently?
I would make _certain_ there won't be another war...
I would establish the World Peace Authority, to be
jointly administered by the US, Britain, France, and
Japan (the Powers). The rest of the world will be
told - "We are in charge."
And these 4 "Powers" are going to act in concert for everybody's
good.... Rather hard to believe.
Post by Rich Rostrom
None of the defeated Central Powers or the newly
established countries in Europe and the Near East, and
in the former Russian Empire shall have armed forces.
Was tried for Germany and we know how it ended. Would be rather difficult to enforce
this on Russia because foreign intervention failed miserably
due to an absence of support at home.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The WPA will provide national security for them with
the Peace Legion.
They will be expected to contribute
funding and volunteer manpower for the Peace Legion,
which however will be commanded by officers seconded
from the Powers (All generals and colonels; also,
initially majors and captains.
Taking into an account that the said "powers" may have different
and not mutually-compatible interests, this would be a real fun.
You can start with a choice of the arms suppliers (very cushy area)
and then proceed to the strategic issues.
Post by Rich Rostrom
And volunteers from the
Powers may also enlist - including men from colonial
territories, on the same terms. There are gobs of
out-of-work Great War veterans to recruit.)
The ASB's will be much more reliable, especially if they have the
death beams.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Powers will provide air and naval force as needed;
also artillery and tanks will be manned exclusively by
volunteers from the Powers.
The WPA explicitly disclaims any interest in the
domestic political and economic system of any country.
I'd assume that you are being sarcastic because it is rather hard
to believe that you are serious. :-)
Post by Rich Rostrom
Any protected country is free to have Red Socialism,
or monarchy, or vegetarian theocracy, if they choose,
but they can't have an army.
And if country refuses to be "protected"?
Post by Rich Rostrom
The WPA also recognizes the paramount position of the
Powers in their spheres of influence. There will be no
pretense that the US doesn't dominate Central America,
that Japan doesn't run East Asia, or that France and
Britain don't have their own zones.
Later on, arms restrictions for all non-Power
Sorry, how this is compatible with "None of the defeated Central Powers or the newly established countries in Europe and the Near East, and in the former Russian Empire shall have armed forces."?
Post by Rich Rostrom
no tanks,
no artillery larger than 3", no armed aircraft, no
warships over 2,000 tons, or submersible, or armed
with torpedoes or guns larger than 4". (That will be
privately agreed to by the Powers immediately;
enforcing it will come later.)
Something of the kind was enforced upon Germany but did not work out
as expected. Neither did (AFAIK) the naval limitations work for Japan.
Russia, not being a part of the Versailles, would not pay too much of
attention, anyway.
Post by Rich Rostrom
If the four Great Powers stand together...
Of course, they would not because they were routinely competing and, anyway,
had different interests.
Post by Rich Rostrom
there is no
one who can effectively oppose this program. And once
it is in place, no one could overthrow it.
Taking into an account that within a rather short period after WWI most of
the winning "powers" dismantled most of their arm forces due to the economic
and political factors, the program is going to be rather short lived.


[]
Post by Rich Rostrom
The key thing is to recognize that "international
opinion" is almost impotent; the Order must be based
on the nations with power to enforce it, and must be
realistic about the interests of those nations, and
must be universal - no country left outside to build
up a threat.
Something of a kind had been implemented by the French (and to some degree
Brits) vs. post-WWI Germany. The result was what WC described as "unnecessary
war". As for "all inclusiveness", by the time of Versailles the victors
simply could not enforce it. Well, they could not really impose it on a
relatively minor power like Poland and they already completely failed with
Russia.
The Horny Goat
2017-08-08 19:38:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 08:50:24 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The WPA also recognizes the paramount position of the
Powers in their spheres of influence. There will be no
pretense that the US doesn't dominate Central America,
that Japan doesn't run East Asia, or that France and
Britain don't have their own zones.
Later on, arms restrictions for all non-Power
Sorry, how this is compatible with "None of the defeated Central Powers or the newly established countries in Europe and the Near East, and in the former Russian Empire shall have armed forces."?
So are the ASB's going to disarm the various forces in the Russian
Civil War? Because if you disarm the Poles in 1919-20 the Red Army is
going all the way to the Elbe while if you disarm the Red Army but not
the Poles the boundary ends up east of Smolensk. Similarly if the
Poles have an army of 300,000 and the Germans hae none - well that
just isn't a stable situation. To put it mildly.
Alex Milman
2017-08-09 13:13:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 08:50:24 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The WPA also recognizes the paramount position of the
Powers in their spheres of influence. There will be no
pretense that the US doesn't dominate Central America,
that Japan doesn't run East Asia, or that France and
Britain don't have their own zones.
Later on, arms restrictions for all non-Power
Sorry, how this is compatible with "None of the defeated Central Powers or the newly established countries in Europe and the Near East, and in the former Russian Empire shall have armed forces."?
So are the ASB's going to disarm the various forces in the Russian
Civil War?
Taking into an account that what is defined as "Powers" (plus Greeks) totally
failed to do anything of the kind, the ASB's looks like the only remaining
option.
Post by The Horny Goat
Because if you disarm the Poles in 1919-20 the Red Army is
going all the way to the Elbe

If Trotsky & Co had anything to say on the subject, Elbe would be just a
starting point of the world's revolution.
Post by The Horny Goat
while if you disarm the Red Army but not
the Poles the boundary ends up east of Smolensk.
Taking into an account that at least some of the Polish "patriots" were
dreaming about Poland "from sea to sea", aka Poland + Lithuania of Vitold's
time and that Pilsudski was considered a Polish-led confederation including
the Caucasus states, things could be very interesting.
Post by The Horny Goat
Similarly if the
Poles have an army of 300,000 and the Germans hae none - well that
just isn't a stable situation. To put it mildly.
Very mildly. :-)
The Horny Goat
2017-08-09 16:36:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 06:13:50 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Taking into an account that at least some of the Polish "patriots" were
dreaming about Poland "from sea to sea", aka Poland + Lithuania of Vitold's
time and that Pilsudski was considered a Polish-led confederation including
the Caucasus states, things could be very interesting.
Unless you have Ukraine involved (which I don't recall Pilsudski being
much interested in except as a source of additional land in SE Poland)
I certainly don't see any move into the Caucasus.

In fact the ONLY Polish interest I know in Caucasian matters was about
2007-2009 when the Poles (who had just been admitted to NATO) were
trying to get German support for Ukrainian and Georgian membership in
NATO - the Polish prime minister was said to have said something to
Merkel like "you know your people were the primary reason we had 50
years of Soviet oppression....."

(I would have LOVED to have been the fly on the wall to see her
reaction when that was said!)
Alex Milman
2017-08-09 18:35:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 06:13:50 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Taking into an account that at least some of the Polish "patriots" were
dreaming about Poland "from sea to sea", aka Poland + Lithuania of Vitold's
time and that Pilsudski was considered a Polish-led confederation including
the Caucasus states, things could be very interesting.
Unless you have Ukraine involved (which I don't recall Pilsudski being
much interested in except as a source of additional land in SE Poland)
I certainly don't see any move into the Caucasus.
"Confederation" meant to be a set of the states forming an anti-Russian
coalition in which Poland would be a leading force. It did not mean the Polish
conquest of the Caucasus area. As for Ukraine, can't tell what Pilsudski was
or was not really interested in but the Polish-Soviet War started when the
Polish troops were near Kiev.
Rich Rostrom
2017-08-10 21:02:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
And these 4 "Powers" are going to act in concert for everybody's
good.... Rather hard to believe.
I am in control, per the OP.

And actually, this program is their _interest_,
unless they want to fight another Great War.
It recognizes their particular interests, and
secures those interests against anyone else.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
None of the defeated Central Powers or the newly
established countries in Europe and the Near East, and
in the former Russian Empire shall have armed forces.
Was tried for Germany and we know how it ended.
It was _not_ tried for Germany. The Versailles
settlement explicitly provided for Germany to have
an army and navy for self-defense. (Against whom?
I wonder.) Later on, when Germany wanted to break
the restrictions and could point to the USSR as a
threat, Britain and France had no basis to object.
Post by Alex Milman
Would be rather difficult to enforce this on Russia
because foreign intervention failed miserably due to
an absence of support at home.
The interventions failed because they had no definite
goal that would draw support. The US and Japan were not
exhausted in 1919; they had barely exerted themselves.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The WPA will provide national security for them
with the Peace Legion. They will be expected to
contribute funding and volunteer manpower for the
Peace Legion, which however will be commanded by
officers seconded from the Powers (All generals
and colonels; also, initially majors and captains.
Taking into an account that the said "powers" may have different
and not mutually-compatible interests, this would be a real fun.
You can start with a choice of the arms suppliers (very cushy area)
and then proceed to the strategic issues.
The Powers have one overriding joint interest:
preventing another Great War that would kill
millions of their young men. On other issues,
the program gives each of them their own
spheres. Disputes at the borders can be resolved
without breaching the overriding consensus.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Powers will provide air and naval force as needed;
also artillery and tanks will be manned exclusively by
volunteers from the Powers.
The WPA explicitly disclaims any interest in the
domestic political and economic system of any country.
I'd assume that you are being sarcastic because it
is rather hard to believe that you are serious. :-)
The WPA has to do this to avoid being caught up in
partisan political disputes. Its goal is peace, it is
not out to suppress socialism or do anything else. This
should defuse resistance.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Any protected country is free to have Red Socialism,
or monarchy, or vegetarian theocracy, if they choose,
but they can't have an army.
And if country refuses to be "protected"?
Any country in this category gets an offer they can't refuse.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Later on, arms restrictions for all non-Power
Sorry, how this is compatible with "None of the
defeated Central Powers or the newly established
countries in Europe and the Near East, and in the
former Russian Empire shall have armed forces."?
There are three categories:

- The four Powers and their empires, who can do as
they please.

- The protected territories (ex-CPs, ex-CP territory,
Russia, ex-Russia), who have no arms at all. The quoted
para applies to them.

- All other countries. It's the latter group which
will get restricted. They won't like it. The four
Powers say "Sucks to be you." They get to keep limited
armed forces. Or they can just sign up for the Peace
Legion.
Post by Alex Milman
Something of the kind was enforced upon Germany but
did not work out as expected.
Germany was authorized to arm for self-defense; when
Germany wanted to break the restrictions and could
point to an external threat, there was no basis for
Britain and France to object.
Post by Alex Milman
Neither did (AFAIK) the naval limitations work for Japan.
The Washington and London treaties were voluntary
restrictions on the naval powers which they could
cast off at will. These restriction are imposed by
the four Powers on everyone else.

If the Powers mutually agree to limits on navies,
all well and good, but it's not essential.
Post by Alex Milman
Russia, not being a part of the Versailles, would
not pay too much of attention, anyway.
Russia at this time is in civil disorder. Part of
the program is to suppress that disorder and insure
that Russia does not become an armed aggressor nation.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
If the four Great Powers stand together...
Of course, they would not because they were
routinely competing and, anyway, had different
interests.
They have the joint interest of No Great Wars.
Competition over oil in Mesopotamia or rubber
in the East Indies or influence in China is
comparatively trivial. Such issues can be
resolved. (One of the things that annoys me about
history is how actors were diverted by minor
issues while really big problems built up.)
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The key thing is to recognize that "international
opinion" is almost impotent; the Order must be based
on the nations with power to enforce it, and must be
realistic about the interests of those nations, and
must be universal - no country left outside to build
up a threat.
Something of a kind had been implemented by the
French (and to some degree Brits) vs. post-WWI
Germany.
In a half-assed, non-explicit way, with wholly
unrealistic trimmings.

The League of Nations, the Kellogg-Briand Treaty,
and so on, were useless fantasy, meaningless
words. (Except when confirming what a Great Power
wanted, e.g the Mandates.)

Here is the reality that was ignored in the Versailles
settlement: the armed forces of minor countries are
meaningless against a Great Power. A minor country's
security depends on the benevolence or indifference of
its neighbors, or the protection of a Great Power. (Or
the tacit consensus support of the Great Powers.)

During the Cold War, a Danish politician proposed
replacing the Ministry of Defense with a telephone
answering machine that would say "We surrender" in
Russian.

But at the time, Denmark was protected by NATO. (And
contributed to NATO.)

In 1938, there were 28 nations in Europe with armed
forces. Five of them were Great Powers (Britain,
France, Italy, Germany, and the USSR.) Six remained
neutral over the next 10 years (Turkey, Sweden,
Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Ireland). The other 17
were all invaded or attacked by Great Powers. Nine
(Austria, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia,
Denmark, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania (1940; ceded 1/4
of the country)) submitted without fighting. Six
(Poland, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Yugoslavia, and
Hungary (1944)) resisted and were quickly crushed. Only
Finland and Greece resisted effectively, and both
were ultimately defeated.

The Versailles settlement tried to make Germany a
de facto small power, but the limits fell as soon
as Germany rejected them and had an excuse, because
Germany was still authorized to arm for self-defense.

The program takes that away. It also ends the
charade of small nations arming for self-defense,
and converts the tacit Great Power consensus against
wars into explicit protection by a real force.

To do this, it discards the illusions of the
Westphalian international system - that all
sovereign states are equal, and the Westphalian
principle that sovereigns don't dictate to other
sovereigns.

It is realistic and ruthless. It goes to a goal
widely praised by the well-meaning (world peace
and disarmament), but not by appeals to high-
minded principles. Instead, naked force. At this
moment in history, all the other major powers
are prostrate or destroyed. Seize the day.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2017-08-10 22:13:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
And these 4 "Powers" are going to act in concert for everybody's
good.... Rather hard to believe.
I am in control, per the OP.
And "you" are what: some almighty supreme being or what?
Post by Rich Rostrom
And actually, this program is their _interest_,
unless they want to fight another Great War.
It recognizes their particular interests, and
secures those interests against anyone else.
Which assumes that (a) their interests are not in any contradiction with
each other, (b) that they don't have any OTL problems, just a pure and
unrestricted colonialism/imperialism, (c) that their populations are quite
comfortable with an idea of a continued war (needed to enforce a new world
order) and (d) there are no problems with maintaining an international force
couple millions strong and not subordinated to anybody specifically (except
"you").

Judging by experience of the OTL international intervention in post-
revolutionary Russia there were noticeable problems with implementing
something like that program even on a very limited scale.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
None of the defeated Central Powers or the newly
established countries in Europe and the Near East, and
in the former Russian Empire shall have armed forces.
Was tried for Germany and we know how it ended.
It was _not_ tried for Germany. The Versailles
settlement explicitly provided for Germany to have
an army and navy for self-defense. (Against whom?
I wonder.)
Poland, for example. Then, there was a non-zero chance that the notion of
a world revolution may escalate from a blabbing stage into something serious.
Then, probably an idea of having a major country without any army at all
looked too unrealistic to be enforced.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Later on, when Germany wanted to break
the restrictions and could point to the USSR as a
threat, Britain and France had no basis to object.
And if it did not have any army whatsoever, would they have any "basis"?
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Would be rather difficult to enforce this on Russia
because foreign intervention failed miserably due to
an absence of support at home.
The interventions failed because they had no definite
goal that would draw support.
There was no "goal" which would draw a public support for a new major
war in 1919. The people had been fed up, the economies of France and
Britain were not in the best shape and the an idea of a new world order
would be quite meaningless for their population.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The US and Japan were not
exhausted in 1919; they had barely exerted themselves.
Can't tell about Japan but it does not look like the US of 1919 was quite
ready to keep "exerting" itself even for the relatively modest goals. Conquest
of Russia definitely was not realistic.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The WPA will provide national security for them
with the Peace Legion. They will be expected to
contribute funding and volunteer manpower for the
Peace Legion, which however will be commanded by
officers seconded from the Powers (All generals
and colonels; also, initially majors and captains.
Taking into an account that the said "powers" may have different
and not mutually-compatible interests, this would be a real fun.
You can start with a choice of the arms suppliers (very cushy area)
and then proceed to the strategic issues.
preventing another Great War that would kill
millions of their young men.
AFAIK, the main goal for the Brits and French was to grab as much of the
Ottoman property as they could (oil). The best way to avoid a new Great War
was NOT to push Germany as far as was done in OTL (see WC's opinion on the
subject). In your scenario, saving <whatever> numbers of lives would mean
losing <unknown numbers> in the wars needed to enforce this new world order.
In the case of the US, involvement in WWI was enough: how many years did it
take for the US to find itself practically without an army?
Post by Rich Rostrom
On other issues,
the program gives each of them their own
spheres. Disputes at the borders can be resolved
without breaching the overriding consensus.
They got their spheres without creating a monstrosity you are advocating.
Why would they create and maintain it?
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Powers will provide air and naval force as needed;
also artillery and tanks will be manned exclusively by
volunteers from the Powers.
The WPA explicitly disclaims any interest in the
domestic political and economic system of any country.
I'd assume that you are being sarcastic because it
is rather hard to believe that you are serious. :-)
The WPA has to do this to avoid being caught up in
partisan political disputes.
Its goal is peace, it is
not out to suppress socialism or do anything else. This
should defuse resistance.
Are we still on planet Earth?

The victorious powers voluntarily cede a lot of power to an abstract body
and finance a powerful military force to support power of that body over
which they don't have an authority. Even idiotic creation as the League of
Nations and UN were not given any military power of their own: leaders of
the big powers were not THAT foolish.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Any protected country is free to have Red Socialism,
or monarchy, or vegetarian theocracy, if they choose,
but they can't have an army.
And if country refuses to be "protected"?
Any country in this category gets an offer they can't refuse.
Mafia terminology describes situation quite well. What if a country
refuses?
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Later on, arms restrictions for all non-Power
Sorry, how this is compatible with "None of the
defeated Central Powers or the newly established
countries in Europe and the Near East, and in the
former Russian Empire shall have armed forces."?
- The four Powers and their empires, who can do as
they please.
Why four? AFAIK, the camp of victors included more than that.

Well, anyway, fantasies aside, in OTL situation was reasonably close to
that but then an upstart Italy (one of the victors) decided that it has
a right to a free (as in "did not belong to a major power") territory and
everybody was caught by surprise.
Post by Rich Rostrom
- The protected territories (ex-CPs, ex-CP territory,
Russia, ex-Russia), who have no arms at all. The quoted
para applies to them.
Taking into an account that the foreign intervention failed and that, short
of the ASB's intervention, there was no realistic way to enforce the foreign
control over the Red Russia I don't see how exactly this would happen.
Post by Rich Rostrom
- All other countries. It's the latter group which
will get restricted. They won't like it. The four
Powers say "Sucks to be you." They get to keep limited
armed forces. Or they can just sign up for the Peace
Legion.
New world war.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Something of the kind was enforced upon Germany but
did not work out as expected.
Germany was authorized to arm for self-defense; when
Germany wanted to break the restrictions and could
point to an external threat, there was no basis for
Britain and France to object.
Because it was unrealistic to start with. AFAIK, Hitler did not renounce
the Versailles because of any specific foreign danger but because these
conditions were humiliating and neither France nor Britain had a real power
to prevent him from doing so: he bluffed but they were not ready to start a
new war. BTW, the restrictions were quietly bypassed well before Hitler came
to power: the Germans were training on the Soviet territory.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Neither did (AFAIK) the naval limitations work for Japan.
The Washington and London treaties were voluntary
restrictions on the naval powers which they could
cast off at will. These restriction are imposed by
the four Powers on everyone else.
The hint: Japan's actions clearly indicate that the Great Powers were
not in a complete accord.
Post by Rich Rostrom
If the Powers mutually agree to limits on navies,
all well and good, but it's not essential.
Post by Alex Milman
Russia, not being a part of the Versailles, would
not pay too much of attention, anyway.
Russia at this time is in civil disorder. Part of
the program is to suppress that disorder and insure
that Russia does not become an armed aggressor nation.
Which makes the whole thing quite unrealistic unless the "Powers"
are ready to send something on the order of a million troops, conduct
a major war of conquest and to pay for maintaining their troops there
for who knows how many years. In OTL French enthusiasm was more than
somewhat curbed after the whole Greek division was massacred by the
Ukrainians and the French sailors in Odessa rebelled. The ungrateful
SOB's would not understand that the war is for their own (eventual) good
and demanded to be sent home.

The only country which DID something meaningful in the terms of intervention
was Japan which occupied most of the Russian Pacific coast (making Americans
quite suspicious) but eventually was forced out.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
If the four Great Powers stand together...
Of course, they would not because they were
routinely competing and, anyway, had different
interests.
They have the joint interest of No Great Wars.
Neither did Germany at that time. Actually, nobody did. However the
regional wars were quite different thing.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Competition over oil in Mesopotamia or rubber
in the East Indies or influence in China is
comparatively trivial. Such issues can be
resolved.
Really? Well, they weren't.
Post by Rich Rostrom
(One of the things that annoys me about
history is how actors were diverted by minor
issues while really big problems built up.)
Perhaps because there was no Supreme Being pointing to them that their
intentions are petty and silly and these minor issues had been considered
"national interests".
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The key thing is to recognize that "international
opinion" is almost impotent; the Order must be based
on the nations with power to enforce it, and must be
realistic about the interests of those nations, and
must be universal - no country left outside to build
up a threat.
Something of a kind had been implemented by the
French (and to some degree Brits) vs. post-WWI
Germany.
In a half-assed, non-explicit way, with wholly
unrealistic trimmings.
The greater trimmings would be even less realistic.

To make a long story short, out of the "Powers" in your schema
only Japan managed to maintain a really big army between WWI and WWII.
There was no mood for anything of the kind in the US and, judging by the
size of the British force in 1939, in Britain as well. France was somewhere
in between but nowhere close to the numbers needed to enforce the "new world
order" of yours.
kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
2017-08-11 10:39:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
To make a long story short, out of the "Powers" in your schema
only Japan managed to maintain a really big army between WWI and WWII.
There was no mood for anything of the kind in the US and, judging by the
size of the British force in 1939, in Britain as well.
There was not only no mood, there was no money or men available. Japan
was financing armed forces at the expense of Manchuku and China. That
sort of colonial exploitation was not politically feasible in the UK or
US. In fact except for India which was financially neutral colonial
programs were run at a loss. British Middle East Mandates were mainly a
matter of ensuring the RN oil supply. By the way completely disarming
Germany was a non-starter in 1919. The German Police Force had sub
machine guns and armoured vehicles. Not even the French considered
complete disarmament as feasible. They were just interested in removing
the chance off an offensive war. IIRC the last Freikorp was not disbanded
until 1920 because of the Red threat.

This time I agree with Alex, the idea of a New World Order is a fairy
tale driven by hindsight and ignoring the realities of 1919.
Alex Milman
2017-08-11 13:23:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
Post by Alex Milman
To make a long story short, out of the "Powers" in your schema
only Japan managed to maintain a really big army between WWI and WWII.
There was no mood for anything of the kind in the US and, judging by the
size of the British force in 1939, in Britain as well.
There was not only no mood, there was no money or men available.
Exactly. And that "World Policing Body" would require a BIG standing
heavily armed force.
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
Japan
was financing armed forces at the expense of Manchuku and China. That
sort of colonial exploitation was not politically feasible in the UK or
US.
Especially for the US: UK at least had its colonies (but judging by WWI & WWII
this was not a great help financially) but what the US would be supposed to do?
To force other countries to pay "protection money"? Rich already used "offer
which can't be refused" would the US in this ATL go Mafia-style all the way?

BTW, even a reasonably limited attempt to invade Mexico with a purpose of
punishing Pancho Vaiila was not an overwhelming success so one can only
imagine difficulties related to a close control of the whole Latin America.
BTW, would Canada (being in America) be considered in US sphere of interest
or, in violation of the geographic principle, remain "British"? :-)
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
In fact except for India which was financially neutral colonial
programs were run at a loss.
And acquisition of the German colonies would increase these losses.
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
British Middle East Mandates were mainly a
matter of ensuring the RN oil supply. By the way completely disarming
Germany was a non-starter in 1919. The German Police Force had sub
machine guns and armoured vehicles. Not even the French considered
complete disarmament as feasible. They were just interested in removing
the chance off an offensive war. IIRC the last Freikorp was not disbanded
until 1920 because of the Red threat.
Even without the Red threat from outside, there was a noticeable threat
within Germany and having it completely disarmed almost definitely would
embolden Poland to some "adventures" at German expense.
Post by kenney@ cix.co.uk (Kenneth Young)
This time I agree with Alex, the idea of a New World Order is a fairy
tale driven by hindsight and ignoring the realities of 1919.
An agreement especially valuable due to its rarity. :-)
The Old Man
2017-08-08 19:28:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
If you were in complete control of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference,
What exactly does that mean? That I can dictate terms to all the
delegates, who will accept them, and their home governments will
also accept my terms? Or do I only control the "work product" of
the peace conference, and that ratification will have to be
talked for?
Post by WolfBear
what exactly would you do differently?
I would make _certain_ there won't be another war...
I would establish the World Peace Authority, to be
jointly administered by the US, Britain, France, and
Japan (the Powers). The rest of the world will be
told - "We are in charge."
None of the defeated Central Powers or the newly
established countries in Europe and the Near East, and
in the former Russian Empire shall have armed forces.
The WPA will provide national security for them with
the Peace Legion. They will be expected to contribute
funding and volunteer manpower for the Peace Legion,
which however will be commanded by officers seconded
from the Powers (All generals and colonels; also,
initially majors and captains. And volunteers from the
Powers may also enlist - including men from colonial
territories, on the same terms. There are gobs of
out-of-work Great War veterans to recruit.)
The Powers will provide air and naval force as needed;
also artillery and tanks will be manned exclusively by
volunteers from the Powers.
The WPA explicitly disclaims any interest in the
domestic political and economic system of any country.
Any protected country is free to have Red Socialism,
or monarchy, or vegetarian theocracy, if they choose,
but they can't have an army.
The WPA also recognizes the paramount position of the
Powers in their spheres of influence. There will be no
pretense that the US doesn't dominate Central America,
that Japan doesn't run East Asia, or that France and
Britain don't have their own zones.
Later on, arms restrictions for all non-Power
countries that have their own armed forces: no tanks,
no artillery larger than 3", no armed aircraft, no
warships over 2,000 tons, or submersible, or armed
with torpedoes or guns larger than 4". (That will be
privately agreed to by the Powers immediately;
enforcing it will come later.)
If the four Great Powers stand together... there is no
one who can effectively oppose this program. And once
it is in place, no one could overthrow it.
There is the question of whether Japan can be truly
incorporated, and not go mad-dog militarist. I think
that recognition as a peer by the other Great Powers
would go a long way to keeping Japan on the rails.
As LBJ once said of a maverick politico, better to
have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the
tent pissing in.
I haven't bothered with any of the details of the
post- war territorial settlement. There are a few
tweaks from OTL that are worthwhile, but not
important. The big thing is to establish a New World
Order, with muscle to sustain itself. The rest is
trivia.
The key thing is to recognize that "international
opinion" is almost impotent; the Order must be based
on the nations with power to enforce it, and must be
realistic about the interests of those nations, and
must be universal - no country left outside to build
up a threat.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
I like your thinking and would only add one thing. No soldier may be stationed in his native country nor any country that his nation controls. (i.e. no Brit in the UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland etc., no American in the U.S., nor Central America, and so on)
I think that this MIGHT lessen "incidents" between the troops and the natives where the officers might look the other way with a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge".
What do you think?

Regards,
John Braungart
Rich Rostrom
2017-08-10 15:17:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Old Man
I like your thinking and would only add one thing.
No soldier may be stationed in his native country
nor any country that his nation controls. (i.e. no
Brit in the UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland etc., no
American in the U.S., nor Central America, and so
on) I think that this MIGHT lessen "incidents"
between the troops and the natives where the
officers might look the other way with a "wink,
wink, nudge, nudge". What do you think?
There will be no restrictions on the four Powers
in their own empires or recognized spheres of
influence. The four Powers will keep their own armed
forces.

This Order is based in reality, not good intentions,
and the reality is that no country would voluntarily
accept such restrictions.

The four Powers, acting together, can impose such
restrictions on everyone else, whether the other
countries like it or not. That's also reality.

The League of Nations, the Kellogg-Briand Treaty,
and so on, were not reality; they were mere words,
having no effect or merely confirming what a
Great Power wanted. (E.g. the "Mandates".) The
illusion that there was some actual authority to
stop wars of aggression was exploded by Italy in
1935.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
WolfBear
2017-08-09 22:21:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
If you were in complete control of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference,
What exactly does that mean? That I can dictate terms to all the
delegates, who will accept them, and their home governments will
also accept my terms? Or do I only control the "work product" of
the peace conference, and that ratification will have to be
talked for?
Post by WolfBear
what exactly would you do differently?
I would make _certain_ there won't be another war...
I would establish the World Peace Authority, to be
jointly administered by the US, Britain, France, and
Japan (the Powers). The rest of the world will be
told - "We are in charge."
None of the defeated Central Powers or the newly
established countries in Europe and the Near East, and
in the former Russian Empire shall have armed forces.
The WPA will provide national security for them with
the Peace Legion. They will be expected to contribute
funding and volunteer manpower for the Peace Legion,
which however will be commanded by officers seconded
from the Powers (All generals and colonels; also,
initially majors and captains. And volunteers from the
Powers may also enlist - including men from colonial
territories, on the same terms. There are gobs of
out-of-work Great War veterans to recruit.)
The Powers will provide air and naval force as needed;
also artillery and tanks will be manned exclusively by
volunteers from the Powers.
The WPA explicitly disclaims any interest in the
domestic political and economic system of any country.
Any protected country is free to have Red Socialism,
or monarchy, or vegetarian theocracy, if they choose,
but they can't have an army.
The WPA also recognizes the paramount position of the
Powers in their spheres of influence. There will be no
pretense that the US doesn't dominate Central America,
that Japan doesn't run East Asia, or that France and
Britain don't have their own zones.
Later on, arms restrictions for all non-Power
countries that have their own armed forces: no tanks,
no artillery larger than 3", no armed aircraft, no
warships over 2,000 tons, or submersible, or armed
with torpedoes or guns larger than 4". (That will be
privately agreed to by the Powers immediately;
enforcing it will come later.)
If the four Great Powers stand together... there is no
one who can effectively oppose this program. And once
it is in place, no one could overthrow it.
There is the question of whether Japan can be truly
incorporated, and not go mad-dog militarist. I think
that recognition as a peer by the other Great Powers
would go a long way to keeping Japan on the rails.
As LBJ once said of a maverick politico, better to
have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the
tent pissing in.
I haven't bothered with any of the details of the
post- war territorial settlement. There are a few
tweaks from OTL that are worthwhile, but not
important. The big thing is to establish a New World
Order, with muscle to sustain itself. The rest is
trivia.
The key thing is to recognize that "international
opinion" is almost impotent; the Order must be based
on the nations with power to enforce it, and must be
realistic about the interests of those nations, and
must be universal - no country left outside to build
up a threat.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Why exactly isn't Italy a member of this alliance?
Alex Milman
2017-08-08 14:28:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
If you were in complete control of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, what exactly would you do differently?
8. Poland gets Danzig, all of Upper Silesia, and southern East Prussia (with no plebiscites anywhere there) while losing its eastern territories with large numbers of Ukrainians and Belarusians (these territories go to the Soviet Union).
Nice. Of course, the facts that in 1919 there was still Civil War in
Russia, that there was ongoing Soviet-Polish War and that there was no "Soviet Union" until 1922 are irrelevant.

Also, the trifles like 3 Baltic republics are completely missing, together with
the fact that in OTL Poland ended up with a big chunk of Lithuania.
Post by WolfBear
Basically, Germany is going to be ungrateful in any case and thus should lose as much territory as possible in the East
While being allowed to annex Austria which never was a part of it.

Anyway, with the expanded Germany (basically, Hitler's dream as of 1933) and
no crippling reparations (and no restrictions on German military in your plan)
the time of Polish possession of Danzig and part of Eastern Prussia is going
to be quite short.
Post by WolfBear
while the Soviet Union is going to get a poison pill due to its annexation of territories filled with Ukrainian nationalists in this TL (as intended; after all, I want Ukrainian nationalists to eventually bring down the Soviet Union and deliver national self-determination for its various SSRs).
The Ukrainian nationalists did not bring down the Soviet Union in OTL (Russia
did) and in your schema the Bolsheviks will have 2 extra decades to deal with
the nationalists in Western Ukraine. Just as they did with the nationalists
in the rest of Ukraine and in other places.
Post by WolfBear
9. In the Middle East, a separate, nominally independent (but under a French LoN mandate) Alawite state is created in coastal Syria while the rest of Syria--along with the Sunni Arab-majority parts of Iraq--is annexed to (Trans-)Jordan (nominally independent but under a British LoN mandate). Indeed, hopefully the Hashemites are more capable of keeping Islamist extremists in check than the Assad family was; plus, with the Sunni Arab-majority parts of Iraq a part of Greater Syria, people like Saddam Hussein wouldn't be able to cause trouble in Iraq.
(a) No Jewish state

(b) The Arab monstrosity under the British protectorate. In OTL the Brits
started having serious problems in Iraq reasonably soon after they created
protectorate and probably not because the local rulers had been excessively
soft. And the Shia areas are going to whom?
Post by WolfBear
10. Bulgaria is allowed to keep a small strip of territory which allows it to have continued access to the Aegean Sea. Greece annexes the rest of this territory, though.
11. A commission is established to investigate whether or not any borders need to be redrawn in the West's current colonies in order to more closely adhere to the principles of national self-determination. If it is discovered that some colonial borders need to be redrawn in order to more closely adhere to this principle, these borders should be redrawn as soon as possible.
(a) Commission consisting of whom?

(b) National self-determination of whom? In most of the African colonies circa
1919 a notion of a "nation" was non-existent (in some cases still is). Then, of
course, an idea that in 1919 the Brits and French are going to give up their
colonies seems too idealistic.
Post by WolfBear
12. Sweden acquires the Aland Islands.
Which belong to newly-free Finland. Any serious reason for this generous gift?
Post by WolfBear
13. China acquires both Qingdao and Shandong.
Anyway, what exactly am I missing and/or forgetting here?
Also, any thoughts on what I wrote here?
Chrysi Cat
2017-08-09 02:35:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Either Wolf intends the Shi'a areas of Iraq to go directly to Persia; or
he thinks they can stay independent of Persia (as 'Iraq', still, most
likely) under British protectorate, when instead they'll be invaded
within 10 months (Persia *should* still have an army as she's hardly a
'reestablished' state in the Middle East).

Assuming nations will act *out of character* is, after all, quite *in
character* for him.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Dan
2017-08-09 08:30:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
1919 if some form of semi independent shia Stan is under protection of the British Empire, with the Indian Empire on one border and British troops still in country in Persia into early 20's Persia is not invading.
The Old Man
2017-08-09 10:28:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
This whole thing is starting to sound a lot like that old movie from the 1930s, "Shape of Things to Come". It might work, but only after another war to pacify all of the folks who didn't get sick of war the first time.

Regards,
John Braungart
WolfBear
2017-08-09 22:28:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Old Man
This whole thing is starting to sound a lot like that old movie from the 1930s, "Shape of Things to Come". It might work, but only after another war to pacify all of the folks who didn't get sick of war the first time.
Regards,
John Braungart
So, like our TL?

If so, could we at least use ASBs to get all of the Jews of Europe to safe places in time?
WolfBear
2017-08-09 22:24:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan
1919 if some form of semi independent shia Stan is under protection of the British Empire, with the Indian Empire on one border and British troops still in country in Persia into early 20's Persia is not invading.
Yeah, Persia is going to have a challenge in fighting against a modern, industrialized country such as Britain. Plus, if Persia loses, wouldn't some Persian territory be up for grabs? Indeed, in such a scenario, why not annex Khuzestan to Shiitestan and Iranian Balochistan to British India?
Alex Milman
2017-08-09 13:24:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chrysi Cat
Either Wolf intends the Shi'a areas of Iraq to go directly to Persia; or
he thinks they can stay independent of Persia (as 'Iraq', still, most
likely) under British protectorate, when instead they'll be invaded
within 10 months (Persia *should* still have an army as she's hardly a
'reestablished' state in the Middle East).
In OTL the rebellions in Iraq started in 1920 and continued after it got a
formal independence in 1932. As for the Shia, as I understand, there is no
clear cut border between them and Sunni so the whole thing would be at least as
"interesting" as in OTL.
Post by Chrysi Cat
Assuming nations will act *out of character* is, after all, quite *in
character* for him.
:-)
WolfBear
2017-08-09 22:26:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Chrysi Cat
Either Wolf intends the Shi'a areas of Iraq to go directly to Persia; or
he thinks they can stay independent of Persia (as 'Iraq', still, most
likely) under British protectorate, when instead they'll be invaded
within 10 months (Persia *should* still have an army as she's hardly a
'reestablished' state in the Middle East).
In OTL the rebellions in Iraq started in 1920 and continued after it got a
formal independence in 1932. As for the Shia, as I understand, there is no
clear cut border between them and Sunni so the whole thing would be at least as
"interesting" as in OTL.
Post by Chrysi Cat
Assuming nations will act *out of character* is, after all, quite *in
character* for him.
:-)
The Iraqi Sunni Arabs will be part of Greater Syria in this TL; thus, we might as well let the Iraqi Shiitestan have the disputed/mixed areas.
Alex Milman
2017-08-10 13:14:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Chrysi Cat
Either Wolf intends the Shi'a areas of Iraq to go directly to Persia; or
he thinks they can stay independent of Persia (as 'Iraq', still, most
likely) under British protectorate, when instead they'll be invaded
within 10 months (Persia *should* still have an army as she's hardly a
'reestablished' state in the Middle East).
In OTL the rebellions in Iraq started in 1920 and continued after it got a
formal independence in 1932. As for the Shia, as I understand, there is no
clear cut border between them and Sunni so the whole thing would be at least as
"interesting" as in OTL.
Post by Chrysi Cat
Assuming nations will act *out of character* is, after all, quite *in
character* for him.
:-)
The Iraqi Sunni Arabs will be part of Greater Syria in this TL; thus, we might as well let the Iraqi Shiitestan have the disputed/mixed areas.
Yeah, sure. It is all so nice and easy that I wonder why there is still ongoing
fighting in the area and what exactly the Iranians are doing there.
Dean
2017-08-10 16:11:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by WolfBear
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Chrysi Cat
Either Wolf intends the Shi'a areas of Iraq to go directly to Persia; or
he thinks they can stay independent of Persia (as 'Iraq', still, most
likely) under British protectorate, when instead they'll be invaded
within 10 months (Persia *should* still have an army as she's hardly a
'reestablished' state in the Middle East).
In OTL the rebellions in Iraq started in 1920 and continued after it got a
formal independence in 1932. As for the Shia, as I understand, there is no
clear cut border between them and Sunni so the whole thing would be at least as
"interesting" as in OTL.
Post by Chrysi Cat
Assuming nations will act *out of character* is, after all, quite *in
character* for him.
:-)
The Iraqi Sunni Arabs will be part of Greater Syria in this TL; thus, we might as well let the Iraqi Shiitestan have the disputed/mixed areas.
Yeah, sure. It is all so nice and easy that I wonder why there is still ongoing
fighting in the area and what exactly the Iranians are doing there.
The Iranians are trying to reconstitute the Persian Empire.
WolfBear
2017-08-09 22:27:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Chrysi Cat
Either Wolf intends the Shi'a areas of Iraq to go directly to Persia; or
he thinks they can stay independent of Persia (as 'Iraq', still, most
likely) under British protectorate, when instead they'll be invaded
within 10 months (Persia *should* still have an army as she's hardly a
'reestablished' state in the Middle East).
In OTL the rebellions in Iraq started in 1920 and continued after it got a
formal independence in 1932. As for the Shia, as I understand, there is no
clear cut border between them and Sunni so the whole thing would be at least as
"interesting" as in OTL.
Post by Chrysi Cat
Assuming nations will act *out of character* is, after all, quite *in
character* for him.
:-)
The Iraqi Sunni Arabs will be part of Greater Syria in this TL; thus, we might as well let the Iraqi Shiitestan have the disputed/mixed areas.
WolfBear
2017-08-09 22:22:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chrysi Cat
Either Wolf intends the Shi'a areas of Iraq to go directly to Persia; or
he thinks they can stay independent of Persia (as 'Iraq', still, most
likely) under British protectorate, when instead they'll be invaded
within 10 months (Persia *should* still have an army as she's hardly a
'reestablished' state in the Middle East).
Assuming nations will act *out of character* is, after all, quite *in
character* for him.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
You think that Persia is capable of defeating Britain in a war in the early 1920s?

Also, would Persia even want to rule over Iraqi Arabs? Or is it all about the oil for Persia?
WolfBear
2017-08-09 22:15:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by WolfBear
If you were in complete control of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, what exactly would you do differently?
8. Poland gets Danzig, all of Upper Silesia, and southern East Prussia (with no plebiscites anywhere there) while losing its eastern territories with large numbers of Ukrainians and Belarusians (these territories go to the Soviet Union).
Nice. Of course, the facts that in 1919 there was still Civil War in
Russia, that there was ongoing Soviet-Polish War and that there was no "Soviet Union" until 1922 are irrelevant.
ASBs will fast-forward the situation in Russia by several years. Indeed, is that good enough for you?

Also, though, while we have ASBs, we might as well use them to create the post-1991 map of the ex-Soviet space, but seven decades early. Thus, let's do that. After all, if ASBs allow me to do this seven decades early, why not do it and spare the people of these territories a lot of suffering?
Post by Alex Milman
Also, the trifles like 3 Baltic republics are completely missing,
I didn't mention them because I didn't change anything about them in comparison to our TL.
Post by Alex Milman
together with
the fact that in OTL Poland ended up with a big chunk of Lithuania.
Poland still keeps those territories due to their very large Polish population:

Loading Image...
Post by Alex Milman
Post by WolfBear
Basically, Germany is going to be ungrateful in any case and thus should lose as much territory as possible in the East
While being allowed to annex Austria which never was a part of it.
Yes--due to its ethnic German-majority population. Ditto for the Sudetenland.
Post by Alex Milman
Anyway, with the expanded Germany (basically, Hitler's dream as of 1933) and
no crippling reparations (and no restrictions on German military in your plan)
Actually, the German military restrictions in my plan are the same as those in our TL. I didn't mention them because--like with the Baltic countries--nothing changed in regards to this TL in comparison to our TL.
Post by Alex Milman
the time of Polish possession of Danzig and part of Eastern Prussia is going
to be quite short.
Sure--if Germany tries rearming and France doesn't forbid it. Of course, I'd like to use ASBs to ensure that France (and Britain) stop German rearmament in its tracks.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by WolfBear
while the Soviet Union is going to get a poison pill due to its annexation of territories filled with Ukrainian nationalists in this TL (as intended; after all, I want Ukrainian nationalists to eventually bring down the Soviet Union and deliver national self-determination for its various SSRs).
The Ukrainian nationalists did not bring down the Soviet Union in OTL (Russia
did)
Yeltsin caused the August 1991 coup attempt to fail but Ukraine refused to sign a new Union Treaty in December 1991. In turn, this left Russia with two choices--sign a new Union Treaty without Ukraine or not sign the Union Treaty at all--with Russia choosing the latter option.
Post by Alex Milman
and in your schema the Bolsheviks will have 2 extra decades to deal with
the nationalists in Western Ukraine. Just as they did with the nationalists
in the rest of Ukraine and in other places.
Didn't the rest of Ukraine have less nationalists to begin with, though?

Also, even after Stalin brutally crushed the rebellion that Ukrainian nationalists launched after WWII, there were still enough of them to make trouble for the Soviet Union starting from the late 1980s.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by WolfBear
9. In the Middle East, a separate, nominally independent (but under a French LoN mandate) Alawite state is created in coastal Syria while the rest of Syria--along with the Sunni Arab-majority parts of Iraq--is annexed to (Trans-)Jordan (nominally independent but under a British LoN mandate). Indeed, hopefully the Hashemites are more capable of keeping Islamist extremists in check than the Assad family was; plus, with the Sunni Arab-majority parts of Iraq a part of Greater Syria, people like Saddam Hussein wouldn't be able to cause trouble in Iraq.
(a) No Jewish state
The Jewish state should hopefully come later. Right now, there's not enough Jews in Palestine for a Jewish state.
Post by Alex Milman
(b) The Arab monstrosity under the British protectorate. In OTL the Brits
started having serious problems in Iraq reasonably soon after they created
protectorate and probably not because the local rulers had been excessively
soft.
Couldn't the Hashemites try keeping things under control for Britain? If not, though, Britain is going to have a decade or two of fun crushing Arab rebellions in this mega-Sunni Arab state.
Post by Alex Milman
And the Shia areas are going to whom?
They become an independent state but under a British League of Nations Mandate.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by WolfBear
10. Bulgaria is allowed to keep a small strip of territory which allows it to have continued access to the Aegean Sea. Greece annexes the rest of this territory, though.
11. A commission is established to investigate whether or not any borders need to be redrawn in the West's current colonies in order to more closely adhere to the principles of national self-determination. If it is discovered that some colonial borders need to be redrawn in order to more closely adhere to this principle, these borders should be redrawn as soon as possible.
(a) Commission consisting of whom?
Experts in ethnolinguistics, presumably. Basically, similar people to (or even the same ones) the ones who made up the Inquiry (which gave President Wilson advice for the border-drawing at Versailles):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inquiry

The Inquiry's report for post-WWI Europe can be found here (starting from page 230-something, I think):

https://archive.org/details/MyDiaryAtConferenceOfParis-Vol4

Afterwards ASBs will be tasked with enforcing the new borders, of course.
Post by Alex Milman
(b) National self-determination of whom?
The various ethnic groups there.
Post by Alex Milman
In most of the African colonies circa
1919 a notion of a "nation" was non-existent (in some cases still is).
That's where mass literacy programs should come in.
Post by Alex Milman
Then, of
course, an idea that in 1919 the Brits and French are going to give up their
colonies seems too idealistic.
That's what ASBs are for. :)
Post by Alex Milman
Post by WolfBear
12. Sweden acquires the Aland Islands.
Which belong to newly-free Finland. Any serious reason for this generous gift?
The majority of the population there are Swedes, no?
Post by Alex Milman
Post by WolfBear
13. China acquires both Qingdao and Shandong.
Anyway, what exactly am I missing and/or forgetting here?
Also, any thoughts on what I wrote here?
The Horny Goat
2017-08-10 02:10:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by Alex Milman
Post by WolfBear
8. Poland gets Danzig, all of Upper Silesia, and southern East Prussia (with no plebiscites anywhere there) while losing its eastern territories with large numbers of Ukrainians and Belarusians (these territories go to the Soviet Union).
Nice. Of course, the facts that in 1919 there was still Civil War in
Russia, that there was ongoing Soviet-Polish War and that there was no "Soviet Union" until 1922 are irrelevant.
The Bolsheviks were called Soviets long before 1922 - :All power to
the Soviets!
Post by WolfBear
Yeltsin caused the August 1991 coup attempt to fail but Ukraine refused to sign a new Union Treaty in December 1991. In turn, this left Russia with two choices--sign a new Union Treaty without Ukraine or not sign the Union Treaty at all--with Russia choosing the latter option.
Ukraine was a key architect of the failed Union treaty which largely
foundered on their withdrawal.
Post by WolfBear
Post by Alex Milman
Post by WolfBear
9. In the Middle East, a separate, nominally independent (but under a French LoN mandate) Alawite state is created in coastal Syria while the rest of Syria--along with the Sunni Arab-majority parts of Iraq--is annexed to (Trans-)Jordan (nominally independent but under a British LoN mandate). Indeed, hopefully the Hashemites are more capable of keeping Islamist extremists in check than the Assad family was; plus, with the Sunni Arab-majority parts of Iraq a part of Greater Syria, people like Saddam Hussein wouldn't be able to cause trouble in Iraq.
(a) No Jewish state
the fundamental question there is whether a state, in Palestine or
elsewhere. The third option is not as far fetched as it sounds.
Post by WolfBear
The Jewish state should hopefully come later. Right now, there's not enough Jews in Palestine for a Jewish state.
Post by Alex Milman
(b) The Arab monstrosity under the British protectorate. In OTL the Brits
started having serious problems in Iraq reasonably soon after they created
protectorate and probably not because the local rulers had been excessively
soft.
In the 30s the main problem was the inflow of Jews and of course even
more so in 1945-47 when the camps opened and Palestine was the
location of choice for many survivors.

Presumably no Third Reich means no Holocaust and therefore no
mentality that the only place Jews could be safe was in the state of
Israel. (Most American Jews don't feel that way though many have
special feelings towards Israel. The same is true of Canadian Jews)
Alex Milman
2017-08-10 14:01:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by Alex Milman
Post by WolfBear
If you were in complete control of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, what exactly would you do differently?
8. Poland gets Danzig, all of Upper Silesia, and southern East Prussia (with no plebiscites anywhere there) while losing its eastern territories with large numbers of Ukrainians and Belarusians (these territories go to the Soviet Union).
Nice. Of course, the facts that in 1919 there was still Civil War in
Russia, that there was ongoing Soviet-Polish War and that there was no "Soviet Union" until 1922 are irrelevant.
ASBs will fast-forward the situation in Russia by several years. Indeed, is that good enough for you?
Not at all as long as we are on planet Earth. It does not make sense to
discuss the wild fantasies with any degree of a seriousness.
Post by WolfBear
Also, though, while we have ASBs,
Translation: as long as you did not bother to spent any time on finding the
basics on the subject before posting. :-)
Post by WolfBear
we might as well use them to create the post-1991 map of the ex-Soviet space,
Which would include the territories that were out of the Soviet's reach in
1919.
Post by WolfBear
but seven decades early. Thus, let's do that. After all, if ASBs allow me to do this seven decades early, why not do it and spare the people of these territories a lot of suffering?
Why? Because it would make too many things different for any meaningful
speculation. Why wouldn't the same Soviet-friendly ASB's provide Lenin with
the nuclear ballistic missiles, the tanks built in XXI century and many other
useful things?
Post by WolfBear
Post by Alex Milman
Also, the trifles like 3 Baltic republics are completely missing,
I didn't mention them because I didn't change anything about them in comparison to our TL.
Post by Alex Milman
together with
the fact that in OTL Poland ended up with a big chunk of Lithuania.
http://polishpoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/poles-1918.jpg
Post by Alex Milman
Post by WolfBear
Basically, Germany is going to be ungrateful in any case and thus should lose as much territory as possible in the East
While being allowed to annex Austria which never was a part of it.
Yes--due to its ethnic German-majority population. Ditto for the Sudetenland.
Post by Alex Milman
Anyway, with the expanded Germany (basically, Hitler's dream as of 1933) and
no crippling reparations (and no restrictions on German military in your plan)
Actually, the German military restrictions in my plan are the same as those in our TL. I didn't mention them because--like with the Baltic countries--nothing changed in regards to this TL in comparison to our TL.
Post by Alex Milman
the time of Polish possession of Danzig and part of Eastern Prussia is going
to be quite short.
Sure--if Germany tries rearming and France doesn't forbid it. Of course, I'd like to use ASBs to ensure that France (and Britain) stop German rearmament in its tracks.
But because ASB's are not there, the whole schema collapses.
Post by WolfBear
Post by Alex Milman
Post by WolfBear
while the Soviet Union is going to get a poison pill due to its annexation of territories filled with Ukrainian nationalists in this TL (as intended; after all, I want Ukrainian nationalists to eventually bring down the Soviet Union and deliver national self-determination for its various SSRs).
The Ukrainian nationalists did not bring down the Soviet Union in OTL (Russia
did)
Yeltsin caused the August 1991 coup attempt to fail but Ukraine refused to sign a new Union Treaty in December 1991. In turn, this left Russia with two choices--sign a new Union Treaty without Ukraine or not sign the Union Treaty at all--with Russia choosing the latter option.
This is probably ASB's version of the events. :-)

Creation of the Russian Federation with its own President was a death warrant
to the SU (hence the coup). Even in the late 1980's a prevailing idea in the
Russian Federation was to get out of the SU because, justifiably or not, the
Soviet republics were considered as the parasites leeching on the Russian
economy. After the coup the talks about creation of CONFEDERACY started.

Independence of the Baltic republics had been recognized on September 6.
On November announcement had been made about creation of confederacy (7
former republics: Russia, Belorussia, and 4 "stans"), which de facto ended
the SU.

On December 1st, after the referendum, independence of Ukraine had been
officially declared and immediately recognized by Yeltsin (not by Gorby who
already became a meaningless figure).

Meeting you are talking about happened by Yeltsin's initiative. According to
then head of Belorussian government neither them nor Ukrainians had an idea
about the agenda while Russian delegation already had a draft of an protocol.
Ukrainian agreement was needed because Ukraine was one of 3 initial signators
of a document which created the Soviet Union.
Post by WolfBear
Post by Alex Milman
and in your schema the Bolsheviks will have 2 extra decades to deal with
the nationalists in Western Ukraine. Just as they did with the nationalists
in the rest of Ukraine and in other places.
Didn't the rest of Ukraine have less nationalists to begin with, though?
[Sight]

Are you completely unaware of the fact that there was a nationalist Ukrainian
government with its own army and a wide support over most of the Ukraine and
that this government had been fighting the Bolsheviks (and Entente) for quite
a while?
Post by WolfBear
Also, even after Stalin brutally crushed the rebellion that Ukrainian nationalists launched after WWII, there were still enough of them to make trouble for the Soviet Union starting from the late 1980s.
There was not too much of a "trouble" with them in the late 1980. Much more
"trouble" was with the huge meetings which were happening in Moscow on a
regular basis (and even more "trouble" with the fact that militia was passively
watching them).
The Old Man
2017-08-08 19:19:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
6. A nominally independent Kurdistan (as a British League of Nations Mandate) is created out of the Kurdish-majority parts of Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.
What about Armenia and their treatment by the Turks?

Regards,
John Braungart
WolfBear
2017-08-09 22:19:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Old Man
Post by WolfBear
6. A nominally independent Kurdistan (as a British League of Nations Mandate) is created out of the Kurdish-majority parts of Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.
What about Armenia and their treatment by the Turks?
Regards,
John Braungart
First of all, I figured that I might as well use the ASBs to create the post-1991 map of the ex-Soviet countries seven decades early; Armenia's borders would be a bit different, though.

In regards to Armenia, this would mean post-1991 borders + Nagorno-Karabakh + the six Armenian vilayets + the Trabzon vilayet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_vilayets
WolfBear
2017-08-09 22:20:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Old Man
Post by WolfBear
6. A nominally independent Kurdistan (as a British League of Nations Mandate) is created out of the Kurdish-majority parts of Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.
What about Armenia and their treatment by the Turks?
Regards,
John Braungart
First of all, I figured that I might as well use the ASBs to create the post-1991 map of the ex-Soviet countries seven decades early; Armenia's borders would be a bit different, though.

In regards to Armenia, this would mean post-1991 borders + Nagorno-Karabakh + the six Armenian vilayets + the Trabzon vilayet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_vilayets
Don Phillipson
2017-08-09 23:21:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
If you were in complete control of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference,
what exactly would you do differently?
This question appears normal for "human nature" yet remains
nonsensical. We agree that no person and no country (national
delegation) "controlled" the 1919 Peace Conference, and no
person or country could. because the participants were (mostly)
free to disagree, despite that agreement was their nominal
objective.

The actual outcomes of 1919 had a lot to do with political
culture, specifically (1) prior negotiating experience and
(2) political tradition, e.g. willingness to abide by a group
decision you opposed, either because you see a route of
escape or else you believe your turn will come, and at a
later date you can get what you want. We can see how
the actual participants at Versailles (e.g. Americans, French,
Arabs, British etc.) had substantially dissimilar histories of both
#1 and #2, thus reacted differently even to those clauses
they were willing to sign.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
WolfBear
2017-08-10 01:14:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by WolfBear
If you were in complete control of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference,
what exactly would you do differently?
This question appears normal for "human nature" yet remains
nonsensical. We agree that no person and no country (national
delegation) "controlled" the 1919 Peace Conference, and no
person or country could. because the participants were (mostly)
free to disagree, despite that agreement was their nominal
objective.
The actual outcomes of 1919 had a lot to do with political
culture, specifically (1) prior negotiating experience and
(2) political tradition, e.g. willingness to abide by a group
decision you opposed, either because you see a route of
escape or else you believe your turn will come, and at a
later date you can get what you want. We can see how
the actual participants at Versailles (e.g. Americans, French,
Arabs, British etc.) had substantially dissimilar histories of both
#1 and #2, thus reacted differently even to those clauses
they were willing to sign.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Yes, all of this is absolutely correct. Indeed, the interesting thing is that, in the long-run, national self-determination has prevailed throughout Europe (and the ex-USSR space as well, of course):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Europe#/media/File:Languages1.svg

Frankly, it's fascinating to think about how a bunch of separate decisions and actions combined gradually resulted in a Europe where a whole bunch of ethnic groups have their own state (or two--such as for Albania/Kosovo, Bulgaria/Macedonia, Germany/Austria, Romania/Moldova, et cetera).
g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
2017-08-10 11:17:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
If you were in complete control of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, what exactly would you do differently?
2. Germany is allowed to annex Austria, the Sudetenland, and South Tyrol (I'm sympathetic to Italy's security argument, but its poor treatment of the South Tyrolese Germans for the next 50 years in our TL disqualifies Italy from acquiring South Tyrol) in 1919.
4. Instead of Czechoslovakia, separate Czech and Slovak states are created.
Slovakia is not quite viable, even less so if it does not include
Csallóköz. I guess a common country with the Czechs was quite a popular
idea, but if you strip the Sudetenland as well, the resulting combo
Czech lands + Slovakia would be very weak indeed, separately or
together.

At the best, independent Slovakia will manage to become a client state of
Poland. At the worst, it will remain a client state of Hungary, and it's
anyone's guess how long it will remain just a client state.

Similarly, the Czech lands will become quite dependent on Greater Germany.

You also have to do something with Subcarpathian Ruthenia.


At this point, you might as well keep Autria-Hungary along and just
force it to give the minorities autonomy and reorganize its political
system along more democratic lines (especially in Hungary).
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
WolfBear
2017-08-10 23:58:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
Post by WolfBear
If you were in complete control of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, what exactly would you do differently?
2. Germany is allowed to annex Austria, the Sudetenland, and South Tyrol (I'm sympathetic to Italy's security argument, but its poor treatment of the South Tyrolese Germans for the next 50 years in our TL disqualifies Italy from acquiring South Tyrol) in 1919.
4. Instead of Czechoslovakia, separate Czech and Slovak states are created.
Slovakia is not quite viable, even less so if it does not include
Csallóköz. I guess a common country with the Czechs was quite a popular
idea, but if you strip the Sudetenland as well, the resulting combo
Czech lands + Slovakia would be very weak indeed, separately or
together.
What about giving Slovakia Csallokoz while giving the other Hungarian-majority areas to Hungary, though?

Also, in regards to the Sudetenland, its ethnic German population is simply too large to put into a Czech (or Czechoslovak) state, IMHO. Sure, you can bend the rules of national self-determination when it comes to less populous territories such as Danzig and South Tyrol, but putting 3 million ethnic Germans inside of a Czechoslovak (or Czech) state just seems to be excessive.
Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
At the best, independent Slovakia will manage to become a client state of
Poland. At the worst, it will remain a client state of Hungary, and it's
anyone's guess how long it will remain just a client state.
Did independent Slovakia become a client state of Poland and/or Hungary after 1993 in our TL, though?
Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
Similarly, the Czech lands will become quite dependent on Greater Germany.
Did independent Czechia become a client state of Germany after 1993 in our TL, though?
Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
You also have to do something with Subcarpathian Ruthenia.
Ideally, it should be a part of Ukraine. However, I'm squeamish about putting it inside of the Soviet Union due to the forced collectivization and other crap that occurred in the Soviet Union later on.

Honestly, it would be nice to just use ASBs to break up "Greater Russia" seven decades early and then to give Subcarpathian Ruthenia to Ukraine. Indeed, that would be the best solution in regards to this.
Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
At this point, you might as well keep Autria-Hungary along and just
force it to give the minorities autonomy and reorganize its political
system along more democratic lines (especially in Hungary).
Sure, you could do that. However, as a fan of national self-determination myself, I absolutely detest both Austria-Hungary and the Soviet Union and am glad to see both of these countries being gone and broken-up into separate ethnic-based countries.

Honestly, you could have a solution involving a surviving Austria-Hungary; however, I am simply allergic to multinational empires. (Note: I am *not* necessarily against diversity; rather, I simply enjoy seeing various ethnic groups have a state or two where they are the majority of the population.)
Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
2017-08-11 10:36:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
What about giving Slovakia Csallokoz while giving the other Hungarian-majority areas to Hungary, though?
What's the point, then? There is also Kassa and Pozsony that Slovakia
would like to have...
Post by WolfBear
Also, in regards to the Sudetenland, its ethnic German population is simply too large to put into a Czech (or Czechoslovak) state, IMHO. Sure, you can bend the rules of national self-determination when it comes to less populous territories such as Danzig and South Tyrol, but putting 3 million ethnic Germans inside of a Czechoslovak (or Czech) state just seems to be excessive.
Sure. And a lot of these Germans lived in Prague and Brno, and you
really do not want to give Brno to Austria (and do not even consider
Prague...)
Post by WolfBear
Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
At the best, independent Slovakia will manage to become a client state of
Poland. At the worst, it will remain a client state of Hungary, and it's
anyone's guess how long it will remain just a client state.
Did independent Slovakia become a client state of Poland and/or Hungary after 1993 in our TL, though?
Poland and Hungary of 1993 are quite pacified, unlike Poland and Hungary
of 1919...

And, in 1939, Hungary tried to annex newly independent Slovakia outright
- it was an intervention by Hitler himself that saved Slovakia, for
whatever good it might do afterwards.
Post by WolfBear
Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
Similarly, the Czech lands will become quite dependent on Greater Germany.
Did independent Czechia become a client state of Germany after 1993 in our TL, though?
Germany of today is just a shadow of pre-WWII Germany, though...
Anyway, yes, current Czech economy is quite totally dependent on
Germany, and the policy is very much aligned (thanks to EU).
Post by WolfBear
Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
You also have to do something with Subcarpathian Ruthenia.
Ideally, it should be a part of Ukraine.
Ideally for whom? If going by ethnicity, the language is emphatically
*not* Ukrainian. If going by the feeling of intellectual elite (such as
there was at the time), the preferred language was Russian.
Perhaps independent Ruthenia would be ideal, but it would be very poor
and backward country indeed - and at the mercy of her neighbours.
And you'd have to force the national language down the throats of the
intelligentsia.

Ruthenians are perhaps one of the Europe's people with the lowest
possible national self esteem.
Post by WolfBear
However, as a fan of national self-determination myself, I absolutely detest both Austria-Hungary and the Soviet Union and am glad to see both of these countries being gone and broken-up into separate ethnic-based countries.
Honestly, you could have a solution involving a surviving Austria-Hungary; however, I am simply allergic to multinational empires. (Note: I am *not* necessarily against diversity; rather, I simply enjoy seeing various ethnic groups have a state or two where they are the majority of the population.)
However, current monolithic countries are not monoethnic because there
was just one ethnicity - they are monoethnic because of assimilation,
coercing, disregard and expulsion. Quite a good example is the history
of Great Britain or France.
And in 1918 the ethnic lines were considerably more blurry than today.

True multinational countries sometimes work (but it's more an exception than a
rule) - India is perhaps the best case.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
The Horny Goat
2017-08-11 16:52:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 10:36:36 +0000 (UTC),
Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
Post by WolfBear
Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
At the best, independent Slovakia will manage to become a client state of
Poland. At the worst, it will remain a client state of Hungary, and it's
anyone's guess how long it will remain just a client state.
If you are talking *1919-1940 the answer is not very.
Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
Post by WolfBear
Did independent Slovakia become a client state of Poland and/or Hungary after 1993 in our TL, though?
Between their experience of first German tyranny and then Soviet
tyranny I'm pretty sure Slovakia, Poland and Hungary all figured out
oppressing others wasn't really a good option.
Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
Poland and Hungary of 1993 are quite pacified, unlike Poland and Hungary
of 1919...
Having first "enjoyed" 40 years Soviet oppression largely due to the
attempts of Germany to first make it German oppression!
Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
And, in 1939, Hungary tried to annex newly independent Slovakia outright
- it was an intervention by Hitler himself that saved Slovakia, for
whatever good it might do afterwards.
Post by WolfBear
Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
Similarly, the Czech lands will become quite dependent on Greater Germany.
There is dependence and dependence. Economically Canada is dominated
by the United States. It's usually low-key (though sometimes a massive
pain in the a**) but present. Obviously the situation is nothing at
all like Slovakia with respect to Germany 1939-45.
Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
Germany of today is just a shadow of pre-WWII Germany, though...
Anyway, yes, current Czech economy is quite totally dependent on
Germany, and the policy is very much aligned (thanks to EU).
I somehow think that Hitler would not have been too unhappy with the
current status quo in Europe particularly if he understood how Germany
got from 1945 -> 2017. It might not be military conquest but
economically Germany is a power house which dominates pretty much
everything between Germany and Russia and quite a bit west of Germany
as well. (And compared to 1939, most of central Europe is essentially
"Judenrein" which would also appeal to him - many he murdered but
there was substantial post-war emigration to Israel and North America
as well)
Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
Ideally for whom? If going by ethnicity, the language is emphatically
*not* Ukrainian. If going by the feeling of intellectual elite (such as
there was at the time), the preferred language was Russian.
Perhaps independent Ruthenia would be ideal, but it would be very poor
and backward country indeed - and at the mercy of her neighbours.
And you'd have to force the national language down the throats of the
intelligentsia.
Or you could have mass emigration. Canada got a LOT of people from
that region pre-1914.
Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
Ruthenians are perhaps one of the Europe's people with the lowest
possible national self esteem.
True multinational countries sometimes work (but it's more an exception than a
rule) - India is perhaps the best case.
One presumes you discount the 10+ million dead and 20+ million
displaced in 1947-48 to get that way?

As an example of successful decolonization I would argue India was one
of the worst examples one might cite.
Rich Rostrom
2017-08-11 22:57:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Between their experience of first German tyranny and
then Soviet tyranny I'm pretty sure Slovakia, Poland
and Hungary all figured out oppressing others wasn't
really a good option.
You might think... but people who have been on the
wrong end of "might makes right" governance often
derive the lesson that they must have might; that
tyranny is inevitable, and the only safety lies in
being the top dogs.

Long-term exposure to "low-trust" culture is corrosive.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
2017-08-14 07:01:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
I somehow think that Hitler would not have been too unhappy with the
current status quo in Europe particularly if he understood how Germany
got from 1945 -> 2017
I guess he would not be happy *at all* with the border. And the
de-unification with Austria.
Post by The Horny Goat
As an example of successful decolonization I would argue India was one
of the worst examples one might cite.
However, as an example of a multinational country it is remarkably
stable. States are reasonably autonomous, federal institutions are not
toothless, separatist tendencies are few and not too dangerous for the
country as a whole.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
Insane Ranter
2017-08-14 04:23:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Oh man. I get to do whatever?!

Can I do such silliness as giving Turkey back to Greece and recreate the Eastern Roman Empire?
Loading...