WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

[Ziggy Stardust]

Just because Germany was administering the territory surrendered by Brest-Litovsk doens't mean they intended to annex and incorporate it. Everything I remember reading indicated that the plans for Ukraine and Belarus were to use them as buffer states between them and Russia, not fill them with German farmer settlers. Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany are two very different creatures.

Whoah, whoah, that isn't what I was saying.

I think the difference between administering territory and annexing it is more or less semantic. There is no doubt they were trying to expand their influence over the region in opposition to that of Russia (and, in the west, to essentially put a puppet regime in Belgium to counter the British and French). Whether it is through puppet regimes or direct annexation is, I think, irrelevant, at least for the purposes of the point I was making.

EDIT: I realized in my last post I was unclear because I used the term "annex," so I understand the confusion. That is my bad. I should have said "administer" or something analogous. As of 1918, there certainly is no evidence that they were going to directly incorporate those territories into Germany proper.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Thanas: Germany had no interest in vast expansions of Catholic Slav populations in the German Empire, and detaching Galicia from Austro-Hungary would make the Austro-Hungarian state more stable and improve the prospects of a triune arrangement successfully working, while the Poles could be relied upon in that case, having both Krakow and Warsaw as their traditional capitals with a sovereign Polish state, as an effective buffer against Russia which would continue down a course of economic development to continue to make it very dangerous to German interests. Sooner or later there might be trouble over Posen, but other than that the states would conflict less than might be supposed. Annexation of the Baltics would be the only real necessary direct territorial gain in the east that I believe Germany ever seriously had until the post-1916 period.

[Dominarch's Hope]

But heres the thing. Did the Belorussians and Ukrainians actually have strong animosity towards Moscow?


What about letting an independent Poland happen, but with a massive chunk taken out of Russia/Ukraine/Belarus whatever to make it happen? Like a reverse of OTL in a way.

Although Germany might want some fo the Ukraine.


Oh and I thought the Russian Slavs were Eastern Orthodox?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes, Russian Slavs are Eastern Orthodox. But in 1914, as you may notice, there are a lot of Catholic domains of the King of Lechistan to eat through before you get to the lands of Orthodox Slavdom. The Uniate Church in Ruthenia is certainly against Russian rule, as are the Polish minorities further east. These, combined with the bulk of relatively industrialized and sophisticated central Poland and yet more so Kingdom of Galicia, is sufficient to provide the character of a strong state of medium power. Germany has no interest in any of the Ukraine. Those lands do not fit into the industrialized and modern German Empire in any sense, nor do they have any ruling class that can expand the Junkers system, because the Catholic Polish nobility cannot be coopted to Protestant German rule due to the influence of nationalism in the German Empire in the same way they could be in Galicia in Austro-Hungary.

The Baltics are the only eastern objective of the German Empire because they already have a major land-owning and commercial class of German speakers identified with German culture, and outright German ethnic minority of substantial size; and are predominantly protestant. A trivial border fringe to the southern Baltics to extend to the nearest "natural borders", i.e., the attachment of Suvalki and Grodno to the Duchy of Lithuania of the German Reich, and perhaps the advancement of the frontiers of Courland and Livonia to the Velikaya, is the maximal annexation of Slavic peoples that I believe the Second Reich would ever conceivably entertain.

[LaCroix]

detaching Galicia from Austro-Hungary would make the Austro-Hungarian state more stable

More stable? Why would Austria go along with this self destruction? Ceding the (at the time) biggest oil fields in Europe, which made Austria the third biggest oil producer in the world, to Poland? Re-negotiating on the peace of 1848, and turning the de-facto autonomy of Galicia into a true autonomy would be equivalent to pouring fuel into the patriotic fires all over the country! Hungary would immediately rise up for independece, again, and Austria would have a second civil war over that.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Stability would come from the tight organisation of the state into three components--South Slavic, Hungarian, Austrian. The maneouvre would require a standoff with Hungary anyway as Croatia would have to become the centrepiece of the kingdom of the Slavs in the Empire. The Habsburg Kingdom of Poland is not precisely a vast change for the existing regime, either, we are talking about highly interrelated dynastic ties to rival the situation with Spain and Austria in the 17th century, countries would be linked in a full customs union and share the same dynasty and likely have free movement of people. But the idea of the direct incorporation of the old Polish Commonwealth under the Emperor seems a bit absurd, and the state's hostility would be earned without Galicia, and the traditional Polish capital of Krakow. I believe the imperial administration would find this the only realistic option in dealing with an occupied Poland and the Germans would want it to help keep the Poles contented and not aligned against them over Posen.

[Simon_Jester]

Was this actually proposed in any archived documents?

[Thanas]

Of course the treaty didn't characterize German plans at the beginning of the war. However, there was a historical precedent for Germany annexing conquered territories, so the scenario you were mocking isn't "completely nonsense". Even though the Germans were reluctant to get into the war to begin with, the entire German war plan was geared towards an offensive campaign, and the military had long been interested in annexing territories to improve their strategic position in Europe.

The offensive campaign was simply due to the fact that a protracted defensive war would spell doom for Germany. They needed to knock an enemy out quickly so that they could focus on the other fronts. In fact, since Bismarck/Moltke German strategy was always geared towards a quick victory on one front to discourage others from jumping in. You cannot imply a motive of conquest from the way war is being waged considering Germany was locked in and surrounded on all fronts.

As for the military wanting to annex things, I would like to see some evidence of what they actually wanted. I doubt it is "full blown annexation of Eastern Poland and the Ukraine", plus I very much doubt that they would have gotten their stamp on the peace treaty.

Yeah, but they werent entirely adverse to forcefully annexing eastern territories dominated by Slavs.
See-Poland.

Most Germans saw the Polish as annoying rabble that took far too long to be integrated. No way in hell would they want to increase the number of Poles in their country. Even more important, the Polish territories they could have possibly gained were not in any way appealing to Germany considering they were underdeveloped and had no important resources.


Zeon, German policy to the east always included an opposition against a free Poland. They would not want a free Polish state under any circumstance and especially not a viable Polish state that would be almost guaranteed to encourage insurrection among the Polish citizens of Germany. If you put it under the rule of a Catholic, that is even worse.

[LaCroix]

Zeon, that plan is absolutely impossible for a couple of political reasons.

First, Austria has no ambitions to let ANY province go.

Second, even if, there would be no candidates for the open positions that would be acceptable to Austria and these new kingdoms. A de-facto personal union would not be acceptable to the new kingdoms, and if local aristocracy would get a foot into the door, the new countries would be anything but under Austrian control.

Third, Austria is utterly dependent on the Galician and Hungarian natural ressources. Removing the access would cripple their economy.

Fourth, Hungary would NEVER let go of Croatia (and all the other provinces, which are all in the Cisleithania area, which means they officially are part of the Hungarian kingdom), not only due to historical reasons. Letting Croatia (and the other Slavic provinces) go would make the new kingdom landlocked and remove some of the most important centers of commerce. Also, Hungary would be reduced to half its size by that split.

Fifth, the new Slavic kingdom (=Yugoslavia) would instantly turn into a political hotspot, trying to integrate ethnicies that hated each other for generations (and one only recently conquered). Which would lead to....

Sixth, Austria being almost landlocked, for not only did they lose access to like 90% of their coastline, they now sit at the end of the adriatic ocean, with Italy and Slavia both able to lock them in at convenience.

Seventh, Austria would be reduced to almost present day size, economically crippled, and would have lost access to Hungarian and Croatian manpower, who traditionally made up a huge part of the Austrian army. ("When austria goes to war, Hungary, Bohemia and Croatia bleeds.") It would turn it from a global player into a helpless vasall of Germany.

Oh yes, and Bohemia would want independence, too.

You would replace a big, powerful nation with internal problems by a handful of smaller states that have axes to grind. Hungary would want Croatia back, Galicia back, and would love to regain control of parts of Bohemia. Poland would love to be independed and the now third-bigges oil producer. I guess that would mean immediate expansion of the military and war with Germany.

The Slav kingdom would probably almost immediately erupt in civil war, and Italy would certainly try to get a piece of Adriatic estate if they can - they always did.

The only thing that kept things civil was the big powerful central foot stomping on the fires. The long-term solution to Austrias problem would be political reform, decentralization, more autonomy and power to provinces - a kind of European Union, but with a figurehead.

Fun fact, Ferdinand was known that he would probably have done something like that - a reason why the Austrian power elite was not unhappy that he was gone.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You seem to misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm saying that a civil war between Hungary and Austria would be a consequence of a Central Powers victory, and the Austrian victory would be prerequisite to organizing the Empire along the Triune Monarchy lines which was favoured by the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. That would be the "showdown" after the victory, the Hungarians would not give up Croatia. So you're just misunderstanding what I said. The only region I suggested that would be detached politically rather than reorganized would be Galicia, and that would be somewhat compensated by further Balkan acquisitions. Please don't assume I'm that stupid.

It's certainly true that Galicia is an important part of the Empire, but it's also very difficult to successfully organize into any one of the three states of the Empire, because Poles are very different than South Slavs.

I also would say that I don't think there's anything else, Thanas, that could actually be done with Poland once the war was over. The Poles had already been permitted an independentist organisation in the Austro-Hungarian Empire under Pilsudski which was armed, and so what happens next? They could be a fourth Kingdom of the Donaumonarchie, I suppose, but they will still have enormous latitude, and suddenly Austro-Hungary is one of the largest states in Europe, and will start to look as threatening as Russia in time, since I don't buy at all that the Austro-Hungarian Empire is unsustainable in the long term.

[Thanas]

I also would say that I don't think there's anything else, Thanas, that could actually be done with Poland once the war was over.

Yes there is. Free the baltic states and Lithuania, give Lithuania Russian Poland. Or just let Russia continue have them and not free the entire part of lithuania.

The only region I suggested that would be detached politically rather than reorganized would be Galicia, and that would be somewhat compensated by further Balkan acquisitions.

As if the tenstions in the balkans would be any better....

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The reduction of Serbia to a vassal state and reorganization of Macedonia in favour of Bulgaria would frankly shut up a lot of the fighting. Now, I admit that a lot of this thought was developed in a group of discussions many years ago by AH enthusiasts on several message boards which don't exist anymore. Some of the philosophy behind it went into the unfinished work Operation Heinrich by Chris Purnell and I here. It may not be a very accurate read of the situation, but:

1. Most people thinking about the First World War discount the strength of Austro-Hungary, its ability to modernize, and the general loyalty of the elites from many non-German ethnicities.

2. By extension, many people regard the Donaumonarchie as more of an appendage of Germany rather than an allied state;

3. And Germany generally is a territorially satisfied state. Only the Baltics and limited acquisitions of German minority populations in the west make any kind of sense. The idea of Germany as interested in conquest is one largely developed in WW1 propaganda, then elaborated on by academics in WW2 to justify the Germans as uniquely evil, thus reassuring everyone that, no, you can't turn into a Nazi, only Germans can.

So there's a lot of assumptions, I would say, about German aims, and none of them are really true, certainly not until the Ludendorff junta had essentially constricted the regular government.

In regard to your idea, I just don't think that Lithuania is big enough nor sophisticated to rule over the rather developed Russian Poland. Something must be done with it. The debate would certainly be dangerous for the alliance, and very much pit Prussian interests against those essentially of everyone else in Germany and the Donaumonarchie, for whom Poland could be a reliable buffer state under a Habsburg monarchy of its own.

[Thanas]

No way Germany is going to allow a Poland under a Hapsburg. This would essentially make Germany dependent on Austria-Hungary and not the other way around. Germany will never allow an independent Poland in the east, nor one controlled by Austria.

[Dominarch's Hope]

http://mapsof.net/map/wwi-alliances-europe-1914-map

Hmmm, what about just mostly snipping off that Russian bulge into Germany? Make it easier to defend in another war. Say roughly from Lomzha to Warsaw to Brest Litovsk to Brody for Germany. The strategic situation could be justification along with making an easier border to defend.

For the southern area, the Pruth river right before the Dniester could be the new border with Russia for Austro-Hungary. Consuming Rumania and other parts of the Balkans. Now, assuming the Hapsburgs stay in power, then it could be reasoned that they would want to secure the Balkans as mucha s they could.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

http://mapsof.net/map/wwi-alliances-europe-1914-map

Hmmm, what about just mostly snipping off that Russian bulge into Germany? Make it easier to defend in another war. Say roughly from Lomzha to Warsaw to Brest Litovsk to Brody for Germany. The strategic situation could be justification along with making an easier border to defend.

For the southern area, the Pruth river right before the Dniester could be the new border with Russia for Austro-Hungary. Consuming Rumania and other parts of the Balkans. Now, assuming the Hapsburgs stay in power, then it could be reasoned that they would want to secure the Balkans as mucha s they could.

....!? Are you mad? That IS the heart of Poland, filled with the vast majority of the Polish population, and is not merely a "bulge", "into Germany". That is the very heart of Congress Poland.

Furthermore, Rumania was primarily a German-aligned nation at the start of the war, and ended up dragged into the conflict only by the course of circumstances circa 1916 under a new King. If Germany and Austria are striking east successfully, it's just as likely that Rumania will defer the attempted reconquest of Transylvania for another decade to seize Besserabia instead.

I don't understand why the Austrian Empire would want yet another group of Rumanians. Ruthenians, perhaps, but even they are ultimately people who the Poles wish to subject to themselves.



Anyway, Thanas: German opposition to a Kingdom of Poland might be resolution, but what other good option is there? Perhaps a Catholic member of the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen would be offered in preference, though the Austrians would certainly not surrender Galicia to a new Polish state unless it were under an Archduke, so that would strictly be Russian Congress Poland if so, which could cause its own revanchist problems. Frankly the only other alternative I can see is just letting the Russians keep it; it was being handled so clumsily that this isn't a terrible idea, and perhaps the independence of Finland could be secured in exchange for its restoration to the Russian throne, beyond the annexation of the Baltics. This creates a large frontier with Russia, sure, but it's also an almost totally indefensible one for Russia, which likely makes it more of a Russian liability than a German one.

[Thanas]

I do not think Germany would annex the baltics. They would give them their independence and make them satellites and most likely free Finland. Russia can keep Poland. If the baltics on their own cannot survive then Germany might annex part of them. Maybe.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I do not think Germany would annex the baltics. They would give them their independence and make them satellites and most likely free Finland. Russia can keep Poland. If the baltics on their own cannot survive then Germany might annex part of them. Maybe.

Well, the later plan was to make Lithuania at least a component of the German Empire as its own state; I believe the Duchy of Courland would become a component of Prussia due to a vague claim from the Kingship of Prussia by the Hohenzollerns to it through family ties, with the northern territories arranged as a "Baltic Duchy" whose membership in Germany or independence was never clearly defined.

[Dominarch's Hope]

So Germany and Austria-Hungary roll France up with the extra manpower, war is effectively over in 1915, and basically nobody endures the same scale of casualties as OTL, thus preserving European Economic Dominance.

Sometime in the 1920s, the German Economy grows to the point of being able to be a peer competitior to Britain. As does Russia's.

[Simon_Jester]

The war never starts- "World War One" consists of Austria-Hungary squashing Serbia in 1914, with Russia 'declaring neutrality' and staying the hell out of it. There is no major war in Europe, unless of course something else starts it, in which case Russia will jump in on France's side for the same reason France was going to jump in on Russia's side.

Germany does not 'roll France up,' because either there's no reason to fight France at all or France has very sensibly allied themselves with enough people to hold out on the defensive until Germany is bled white.

Also, why are you capitalizing Economic Dominance? What is wrong with your capitalization? You never did explain that.

[Dominarch's Hope]

1. Its for emphasis.

2. The OP presumes a war. I discussed it and wrapped it up quite easily. You forget that Austria-Hungary could attack into Southern France with all the manpower they had to use to hold off and attack the Russians with and that Germany will have a bigger hammer to throw at the French and their entire Rail system focused on shipping men to France.

Or the Germans could also attack through Alsace-Lorraine and meet and smash the French army there.

[Simon_Jester]

1. You don't capitalize nouns in English for emphasis. It's bad grammar, and it makes you look like a Pretentious Twit with Poor Writing Skills.

2. The OP is staggeringly ignorant of the basic facts, and therefore irrelevant. Without Russia the war never happens in recognizable form. For that matter, I'm not sure the Germans even could react sanely to a war in which Russia did not participate; their mobilization plan was based so heavily on their assumptions about the Entente. In real life they were belligerent morons about attacking France because they had no other plan, there was no backup plan of "convince France not to attack via diplomacy" except "demand France disarm its border fortifications so we can occupy them."

I doubt they'd handle prospective Russian neutrality much better; they were buttheads.

[LaCroix]

Without Russia dabbling in other state's business, a war against Serbia would be over in weeks, and then it would simply be a couple of years of something that the US calls "bringing democracy" these days...

(But probably done better, for Austria actually knew how to deal with uprisings.)

[Dominarch's Hope]

Given that they were next door neighbors and intended from the beginning for it to be a long term occupation, and didnt have to worry about half the political stuff we do, and that Serbia is incredibly tiny compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, and had less fanatical and popular support, and had a lot less people by orders of magnitude, your little quibble is basically meaningless.

[Thanas]

Given that they were next door neighbors and intended from the beginning for it to be a long term occupation, and didnt have to worry about half the political stuff we do, and that Serbia is incredibly tiny compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, and had less fanatical and popular support, and had a lot less people by orders of magnitude, your little quibble is basically meaningless.

It is not, for Austria had to deal with much larger and much more threatening/violent uprisings than the USA ever has. when LaCroix is saying Austria got experience with that, he is not wrong, as any cursory glance of Austrian History would tell you.

[Irbis]

Yes there is. Free the baltic states and Lithuania, give Lithuania Russian Poland.

Say what?

Giving Lithuania Russian Poland is about as good idea as giving USA to Canada or Germany to Austria - it's about as big economic and population difference. Except, wait, it's even worse, as Lithuania in 1918 had huge Polish minority (reverse being not true), to the point Lithuanians were actually minority in their own capital! Any combined state like this would just end up in revolt pretty quickly and just be renamed "Poland" month later.

Or just let Russia continue have them and not free the entire part of lithuania.

No way Germany is going to allow a Poland under a Hapsburg. This would essentially make Germany dependent on Austria-Hungary and not the other way around. Germany will never allow an independent Poland in the east, nor one controlled by Austria.

So you say the Germans would just let keep Russia a state perfectly poised to strike into economic heartland of Posen and Silesia instead of giving it to the only ally they had? That strikes me as rather dubious idea, especially combined with creating indefensible puppets Germany has no land access to that would be just major drain on German defence commitment. Puppeting Finland before Poland?

Also, even with Congress Poland, Dual Monarchy would still be below Germany both in population and economy. How that would make them dependent on it?

Frankly the only other alternative I can see is just letting the Russians keep it; it was being handled so clumsily that this isn't a terrible idea, and perhaps the independence of Finland could be secured in exchange for its restoration to the Russian throne, beyond the annexation of the Baltics. This creates a large frontier with Russia, sure, but it's also an almost totally indefensible one for Russia, which likely makes it more of a Russian liability than a German one.

It would create major headache for Germany, similar to the situation of Koenigsberg in 1933, except on much larger scale and with much larger logistical problems. I can see puppeting Poland, and maybe one or two of Baltic states, but Finland? Without 1917 Russian collapse and Lenin's 'peace at any cost' it's completely preposterous. These are not some random pieces of land, it happens to be Russia's only access to Baltic Sea and buffer of their capital, it's one of the last pieces of estate Russia would give willingly.

2. The OP presumes a war. I discussed it and wrapped it up quite easily. You forget that Austria-Hungary could attack into Southern France with all the manpower they had to use to hold off and attack the Russians with and that Germany will have a bigger hammer to throw at the French and their entire Rail system focused on shipping men to France.

Listen imbecile, ever heard such difficult word as 'logistics'? It's not a computer game, you can put only as many troops in region as the railway lines allow you to supply. Put more and (surprise!) you will not increase your strength, but decrease it, seeing new soldiers will not have such unimportant stuff like food, ammunition, or medicines (as you can't literally move trains fast enough to deliver them) but will instead act as excellent morale drain as they will both complain about lack of food, lack of things to do, and act as excellent disease outbreak starter, making your existing soldiers worse.

Also, attacking southern France is rather difficult seeing Austria is only divided from it by, oh, only such unimportant places as Switzerland and Italy. Care to say how they teleport through them?

Or the Germans could also attack through Alsace-Lorraine and meet and smash the French army there.

In case you missed it on your video game map, the area had forty years of forts and citadels put into it. Perhaps you heard of Verdun? If not, educate yourself, attacking through there is excellent way to kill a few hundred thousand troops for nothing.

Given that they were next door neighbors and intended from the beginning for it to be a long term occupation, and didnt have to worry about half the political stuff we do, and that Serbia is incredibly tiny compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, and had less fanatical and popular support, and had a lot less people by orders of magnitude, your little quibble is basically meaningless.

Tiny.

Einstein, research Yugoslavian resistance of WW2. You know, the country that never was completely occupied by Nazis, such was the extent of armed rebellion. They actually liberated their country with little outside help. Now you propose to put this 'tiny' nation into Dual Monarchy, entity far weaker than Nazi Germany, and propose it will all go smoothly.

Yeah, right.

By the way, Yugoslavia has much larger population than both Irak and Afghanistan combined in 1918 (and comparable land area to either), or larger even than contemporary Austria or Czechy proper, so you utterly fail even at basic geography. Care to say just how something that would be most populous and largest part of Dual Monarchy after Hungary is 'tiny'?