Here's a thought. Suppose Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire had won the war (how isn't important in this thread ;) ). Given the usual policy of stealing territory for reperations, what would the map of Europe (and the world for that matter) looked like? Would Germany take more of France? What would happen to the treacherous Italians (from a German and Austrian point-of-view). What would the Ottomans get and would they be able to hold on to it? What would have happened to other powers, such as the United States and Japan? On a related note, what would it take for Britain to ask for peace (would the simple fact that Russia and France gave up the war enough?).

I'd be curious to hear people's opinions on this. :)

I honestlly doubt anythign more then germany claiming even more of france rhine area territory, austria annexing serbia, and ottomans re-annexing Greece woudl happen- I figure the austrians and germans woudl veiw most ethnic-nations as too much trouble by then

Its very possible that with the massive reduction of Russia would satisfy Germany to the point that they would ask for no further land concessions from France proper. Without a strong Russia, the Franco-British-Russian alliance that had plagued Germany before the war would be gone.

What they would have gone for, I think, is overseas territories of France and perhaps Britain. The Kaiser wanted refueling stops for his navy.

The only thing I could think of was that Italy might loose a lot of territory. A good portion of it was Austrian 100 years earlier, so they might reclaim Venitia and Lombardy. But the thoughts about nationalism is a good point. The Austro-Hungarian empire was pretty much at its breaking point as it was, and adding a significant number of more Italians probably wasn't going to make things any easier.

The Ottomans retaking Balkan territory is interesting. They lost the territory not only from nationalism, but because of efforts from the Austrians and Russians. I would imagine that they would like Egypt (not necessarily that they would get it, though ;) ). Cyprus could be given to the Turks, but I'd imagine Germany would be better at protecting and controling it.

Does anyone know what territories the Russians gave Germany and Austria when they surrendered? I figure Germany would want to take Poland, but that's all I can think of.

Well, we get a pretty good idea of what the Allies had coming to them from treaties such as that of Brest-Litovsk with Russia.

Article VI. Russia obligates herself to conclude peace at once with the Ukrainian People's Republic and to recognize the treaty of peace between that State and the Powers of the Quadruple Alliance. The Ukrainian territory will, without delay, be cleared of Russian troops and the Russian Red Guard. Russia is to put an end to all agitation or propaganda against the Government or the public institutions of the Ukrainian People's Republic.

Esthonia and Livonia will likewise, without delay, be cleared of Russian troops and the Russian Red Guard. The eastern boundary of Esthonia runs, in general along the river Narwa. The eastern boundary of Livonia crosses, in general, lakes Peipus and Pskow, to the southwestern corner of the latter, then across Lake Luban in the direction of Livenhof on the Dvina. Esthonia and Livonia will be occupied by a German police force until security is insured by proper national institutions and until public order has been established. Russia will liberate at once all arrested or deported inhabitants of Esthonia and Livonia, and insures the safe return of all deported Esthonians and Livonians.

Finland and the Aaland Islands will immediately be cleared of Russian troops and the Russian Red Guard, and the Finnish ports of the Russian fleet and of the Russian naval forces. So long as the ice prevents the transfer of warships into Russian ports, only limited forces will remain on board the warships. Russia is to put an end to all agitation or propaganda against the Government or the public institutions of Finland.

The fortresses built on the Aaland Islands are to be removed as soon as possible. As regards the permanent non- fortification of these islands as well as their further treatment in respect to military technical navigation matters, a special agreement is to be concluded between Germany, Finland, Russia, and Sweden; there exists an understanding to the effect that, upon Germany's desire, still other countries bordering upon the Baltic Sea would be consulted in this matter.

Article VII. In view of the fact that Persia and Afghanistan are free and independent States, the contracting parties obligate themselves to respect the political and economic independence and the territorial integrity of these states.

Article IX. The contracting parties mutually renounce compensation for their war expenses, i.e., of the public expenditures for the conduct of the war, as well as compensation for war losses, i.e., such losses as were caused [by] them and their nationals within the war zones by military measures, inclusive of all requisitions effected in enemy country.

So, France could expect to have to pay alot of money, but could probably expect to retain their independence whilst huge constraints placed upon their military.

As for Britain, I think Germany would be pleased to get her to sign with some token gestures such as a few pointless pieces of territory in Africa and some compensation. However, due to the Turks, I guess Britain would lose Egypt and Kuwait, but that would be a very hard sell.

I think had Germany won they would have taken most of Frances and the non-big British (as in not Australia or Canada size! but smaller islands) colonies.

Germany most likely wanted some territories in Africa and South America (for raw minerals and rubber respectively). The Germans would probably have taken French Guyana and so forth, and a swath of territories along southern Africa and the West African coast. The Italians would certainly have lost Friuli-Venezia Guilia if they didn't already have it (not sure when they got it), and probably Venetia as well. The Balkan regions (with the likely exception of Montenegro) would have been annexed by Austria-Hungary. France would have lost more Rhine territory.

In 1964 the German "war objectives" in WWI, as they had been outlined by the Reichskansler von Bethmann-Hollweg, became public. Bethmann-Hollweg had sent a PM to his right-hand man in the foreign office, Clemens von Delbrück. According to this Germany wanted:

The industrial area around Liège in Belgium, and the coal-mining and steel-work districts around Briey and Longwy in northern France. All of northern France would be conquered territory, and the western side of the Vosges would be incorporated into Germany proper, including the fortress Belfort.
Parts of Belgium would be turned into a Flemish state under German controll; a puppet state. The Germans would have controll over the Belgian coastline, shutting the British out of the continent.
The Netherlands (neutral) would be turned into another German satellite.
Finally all of Europe would be turned into a Central European trade zone, and the Scandinavian states (also neutral) would be forced to join.
In the east Germany would gobble up parts of Poland, with a population of around a million, mixed Poles, Lithuanians and Jews.
(This culled from a Swedish work on WWI: Jan-Olof Olsson, "Den okände soldaten 1914-1918"/"The Unknown Soldier")

As for Italy, it would most likely loose the parts in the North that Napoleon III's intervention in the Italian unification wrested from the Habsburgs in the 1850's. From a Habsburg point of view it would probabaly have been seen as simple restoration of the proper order.

Had the Turks come out of WWI in anything like a decent shape, they might have gone with Enver Pascha's idea of carving out a huge "Pan-Turkish" Empire from the Aegean to China.

The Balkans would have been a right proper mess.

The only thing I could think of was that Italy might loose a lot of territory. A good portion of it was Austrian 100 years earlier, so they might reclaim Venitia and Lombardy. But the thoughts about nationalism is a good point. The Austro-Hungarian empire was pretty much at its breaking point as it was, and adding a significant number of more Italians probably wasn't going to make things any easier.

The Ottomans retaking Balkan territory is interesting. They lost the territory not only from nationalism, but because of efforts from the Austrians and Russians. I would imagine that they would like Egypt (not necessarily that they would get it, though ;) ). Cyprus could be given to the Turks, but I'd imagine Germany would be better at protecting and controling it.

Does anyone know what territories the Russians gave Germany and Austria when they surrendered? I figure Germany would want to take Poland, but that's all I can think of.

they gave austria hungary the ukraine an germany the baltic states

That would seem to make sense.

Wasn't Bulgaria a Central power? I never really understood their motivations, so I don't know what they would want to gain post war (maybe parts of Romania or Serbia, but that seems about it).

In 1964 the German "war objectives" in WWI, as they had been outlined by the Reichskansler von Bethmann-Hollweg, became public. Bethmann-Hollweg had sent a PM to his right-hand man in the foreign office, Clemens von Delbrück. According to this Germany wanted:

The industrial area around Liège in Belgium, and the coal-mining and steel-work districts around Briey and Longwy in northern France. All of northern France would be conquered territory, and the western side of the Vosges would be incorporated into Germany proper, including the fortress Belfort.
Parts of Belgium would be turned into a Flemish state under German controll; a puppet state. The Germans would have controll over the Belgian coastline, shutting the British out of the continent.
The Netherlands (neutral) would be turned into another German satellite.
Finally all of Europe would be turned into a Central European trade zone, and the Scandinavian states (also neutral) would be forced to join.
In the east Germany would gobble up parts of Poland, with a population of around a million, mixed Poles, Lithuanians and Jews.
(This culled from a Swedish work on WWI: Jan-Olof Olsson, "Den okände soldaten 1914-1918"/"The Unknown Soldier")

As for Italy, it would most likely loose the parts in the North that Napoleon III's intervention in the Italian unification wrested from the Habsburgs in the 1850's. From a Habsburg point of view it would probabaly have been seen as simple restoration of the proper order.

Had the Turks come out of WWI in anything like a decent shape, they might have gone with Enver Pascha's idea of carving out a huge "Pan-Turkish" Empire from the Aegean to China.

The Balkans would have been a right proper mess.

Wow, that's the last time I underestimate Wilhelm II's ambitions.

In 1964 the German "war objectives" in WWI, as they had been outlined by the Reichskansler von Bethmann-Hollweg, became public. Bethmann-Hollweg had sent a PM to his right-hand man in the foreign office, Clemens von Delbrück. ...

It's worth remembering that Bethmann-Hollweg formulated these war aims in September of 1914, prior to the failure of the Schlieffen-Moltke II plan. If we assume that the Germans achieved victory in 1918 instead of the 1914 victory envisioned in the correspondence to von Delbruck, the "terms" would probably be more akin to provisions in the Brest-Livotsk treaty outlined by KittenofChoas above.

Speculating, Belgium would have been annexed outright. In France, in addition to the outlined 1914 war aims, the Germans may have expanded demands to include the Lille industrial/coal region, and general dismantling of all French fortresses NE of Paris.

In Africa, at a minimum, I think, Egypt would have been turned into a joint German-Ottoman proctorate. And in light of the Netherland's role in becoming a part of Germany's great Mitteleuropa, it's possible that South Africa would have been "returned" to them as an enticement to join with Germany ... all this with an eye to embarassing Great Britain's hold in India.

(Anything else worth taking?)

Maybe gotten Britain to scuttle some of her fleet or hand it over. The use of some British ports like the Falkans or territory expansions in places like Papuan New Guinea or Hong Kong. Land in France or absorbing Poland into Germany. Also plenty of money and minerals.

The Germans probably would have abandoned New Guinea anyway. They certainly would have prefered Hong Kong and probably Singapore and parts of Malaysia. If the war was ended in 1918 with all things said and done, I don't think that Germany could have annexed as much of the Netherlands, Belgium and France as they originally intended.

(Anything else worth taking?)

Any one of the various French or British posessions in the Caribean. The Germans wanted a coaling station there.

They were heavily focused on expanding naval capability in Latin America and Southeast Asia, so Singapore/Hong Kong sounds like a good bet to me as well.

First I hold this "wish list" by Bethmann- Hollweg for exaggerated and never manageable. I mean this would have not been the real peace treaty. However France and Britain would have to pay: Colonies, money and restrictions to their armed forces. However if the Germans won in 1917 or 18 it would have been a much milder peace as only gaining some colonies. In 1919 the Germans awaited a mild peace and I believe if the peace conference with the Germans as winner would have lead to a similar peace like 1871: paying much money, some restrictions of the armed forces, some French fortresses ocupied for a certain time and some colonies. I do not beleive that Belgish or French territory would have become German (perhaps the rest of Lorraine not gained in the German- Franco war).

Adler

P.S.: The kaiser wasn´t able to say much. Also he didn´t want the war...

First I hold this "wish list" by Bethmann- Hollweg for exaggerated and never manageable.
Sure, but we are discussing a what-if situation, one that assumes a victorious Germany. That could include as speedy victory in 1914, in which case Germany might have been able to take its pick, at least of French territory. Manageable or not.

The book I quoted does go on to stress that by 1918 leading German politicians had become considerably less ambitious, but it still seems as if their ideas about a peace on terms with the Entente would require controll of such things as the Belgian coast. It seems even then very few on the German side could actually envisage Germany loosing, and loosing big. It was "unthinkable". They had been fighting well and had been very successful in the east.

German ideas about a peace on terms still seems to have hinged on being able to exchange the occupied parts of northern France for something. They don't seem to have expected to be outfought in west. And when it happened ideas about the army being "stabbed in the back" could be circulated. (Heck, even the French were kind of amazed that they actully "won" the whole thing in the end.)

But the German demand for the coast would have been a temporary use of harbours or fortresses for a few years like Verdun after 1871. Germany lost the war because of the US and the US made the error not to force the Entente to a milder peace. To the 1914 situation: Yes a German victory would have hurt France much more- neverthless this wish list of the German chancellor would not have been the last word. I don´t think it would have been a French Versailles. But if- we can also ask what happened after a quick German victory? Revolution in Russia and Facism in France/ Britain? ...

Adler

The Germans could have expected a mild peace had they not shown what they were going to do to the Allies via the "Treaty of Brest-Litovsk" and "Treaty of Bucharest". Essentially, Germany screwed those they beat, time to do the same back.

The only curse is that the Treaty of Versailles was not enforced (beyond 1923 really) and wasn't brutal enough. Had Germany been kept in a position where they didn't have a military, it wouldn't have been able to take on Europe and Britain for one would have been spared the grief.


First I hold this "wish list" by Bethmann- Hollweg for exaggerated and never manageable. I mean this would have not been the real peace treaty. However France and Britain would have to pay: Colonies, money and restrictions to their armed forces. However if the Germans won in 1917 or 18 it would have been a much milder peace as only gaining some colonies. In 1919 the Germans awaited a mild peace and I believe if the peace conference with the Germans as winner would have lead to a similar peace like 1871: paying much money, some restrictions of the armed forces, some French fortresses ocupied for a certain time and some colonies. I do not beleive that Belgish or French territory would have become German (perhaps the rest of Lorraine not gained in the German- Franco war).

Adler

P.S.: The kaiser wasn´t able to say much. Also he didn´t want the war...

The Germans could have expected a mild peace had they not shown what they were going to do to the Allies via the "Treaty of Brest-Litovsk" and "Treaty of Bucharest". Essentially, Germany screwed those they beat, time to do the same back.

I'm not sure I agree; it could be argued that the Germans could cease to expect a mild peace in the event of losing a war to France as early as 1871.

This is one of the problems of "what if" scenarios. It's difficult to discuss demands made during peace negotiations without a baseline reference for the degree of victory. Once the U.S. was involved, the chance for a German victory more or less disappeared. So, one almost has to assume American neutrality. It's definitely a subject for debate on whether the Germans could have achieved victory in 1918 even without American neutrality. (In this discussion I am making the assumption that the 1918 offensives achieved greater results, capturing Paris and isolating the BEF/Belgians north of the Somme river ... w/ 20/20 hindsight, not particularly realistic assumption.)

First I hold this "wish list" by Bethmann- Hollweg for exaggerated and never manageable. I mean this would have not been the real peace treaty. ... However if the Germans won in 1917 or 18 it would have been a much milder peace as only gaining some colonies. ...
The kaiser wasn´t able to say much.

The book I quoted does go on to stress that by 1918 leading German politicians had become considerably less ambitious ... German ideas about a peace on terms still seems to have hinged on being able to exchange the occupied parts of northern France for something.

One issue here is the extent to which the Kaiser and the politicians would have been able to influence a peace settlement. By 1918, it has been argued that Germany had become a military dictatorship with the Kaiser reduced to a figurehead and the too-weak Reichstag reduced to an ineffective opposition. Power being power, one can question whether or not Ludendorf and company would have surrendered their control over the German nation.

Maybe gotten Britain to scuttle some of her fleet or hand it over. The use of some British ports like the Falkans or territory expansions in places like Papuan New Guinea or Hong Kong. Land in France or absorbing Poland into Germany. Also plenty of money and minerals.

Any one of the various French or British posessions in the Caribean. The Germans wanted a coaling station there.

They were heavily focused on expanding naval capability in Latin America and Southeast Asia, so Singapore/Hong Kong sounds like a good bet to me as well.

As naval armaments were one of the causes of the war, an attempt to achieve at least parity with Great Britain seems likely.

The German interest in expanding naval capability in Latin America was a reflection of increased German economic investment in the region. Bases in the Caribbean would be a likely choice. The Falklands may have been turned over to Argentina (whose military had been trained by the Germans), with a lease for a naval station there.

In the Far East, one might expect an expansion of Germany's sphere of influence in China. Singapore and/or Hong Kong would make for some choice demands.

But, of course, with Great Britain being an island one can question whether or not such demands could be achieved during peace negotiations. ...

(All this would make an interesting "What if" HoI scenario ...)

Would the Habsburg Empire have been turned into a Tri-monarchy including Austria, Hungary and Slawia? The policy of the Habsburgs was to keep their multi-ethnical empire under control by 'sharing' power with the second big population part, the Hungarians, wasn't it? Now, if we assume that Austria would annex Serbia, there would be another big population group that at this moment, had no power. Would the Austrians therefore create a 'more stable' tri-monarchy government, according to the dual monarchy that existed before the war?
The Ottoman Empire would not gain territory on the Balkan, because, as an ally of the 'winners', there was Bulgaria - and they surely didn't want the Turks to gain power again on the Balcan. Therefore, the Bulgarian Empire would be enlarged with northern Greece and perhaps something else, and something else woul be given to the Ottomans. this assumption is the most serious I think, because that's what happened in reality: Territory on the north coast of the Aegeis of Bulgaria was given to Greece.

mfG mitsho

I remember reading that the Hungarians did not want to share their rights with other ethinic groups (once they got it themselves). It wasn't Austrian policy to share the monarchy, it was something they were forced to do because of Nationalism. The biggest problem Serbia posed is it inspired nationalism within Austria itself (the Serb population wasn't that small even then). If they did get the Ukraine, there would be a huge increase in lands held by Ukranians, but I don't think they would share power with them (at least not unless they absolutely had to).

As for Bulgaria, I doubt they'd want Ottoman interferance in the Balkans (since, thanks to the German powers, they were freed from Ottoman rule themselves). The Ottoman Empire had been viewed as ready to collapse for at least half a century, and they clearly could not hold on to the Balkans. I could see a Bulgarian state becoming the second most dominant power in the Balkans (nothing beating Austria-Hungary, of course). If you go by ethnic groups, there are some Bulgarian populations in southern Romania and Northern Greece, which could become part of Bulgaria.

Kitten of Chaos, you do not see the consequences of that "treaty" of hatress. It WAS unacceptable and indeed all parites were against. It was only signed after the German generals said the continuing of fighting was hopeless! Chancellor Scheidemann (SPD) retired not wanting to sign that "treaty". The peace treaty of Brest Litowsk was harsh indeed. But you have to look with whom was negotiates: Lenin and his red troops. A very dangerous man, who should kept small. A white government would not have got such a harsh treaty. Also the Germans considered the right of nationalities: Ukraine, Lithunia, Finnland, Latvia, Estonia and White Russia becoming independence. Most of the people in these states were happy to have it (although Ukraine and Belorussia were captured again). But the Entente?
And if you try to justify that treaty with the treaty of Frankfurt am Main of 1871 you have to see this also as a wrong argument since this treaty was also a mild one compared to Tilsit 1807.
Also it was clear for the most that this was not a peacebut a cease fire for 20 years as marshall Foch said. No, Versailles is the beginning point of ww2 and Hitler. But this has already been discussed here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72454

Adler

Germany would have taken most of French colonies in Africa, Asia and America. Furthermore, it would have taken many strategic British colonies. And finally, Germany would have made sign another Frankfurt, but this time not only to France, but also to Britain.

In 1964 the German "war objectives" in WWI, as they had been outlined by the Reichskansler von Bethmann-Hollweg, became public. Bethmann-Hollweg had sent a PM to his right-hand man in the foreign office, Clemens von Delbrück. According to this Germany wanted:....

The memo was reprinted in Fritz Fischer's Germany's Aims in the First World War, arguably the best treatment on the subject of Germany's plans. HIs controversial thesis (http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs34.htm) held that rather than all world powers sharing some amount of blame for the causes of the war, Imperial Germany did in fact attempt to secure dominance over Europe by means of a decisive war.

The "wish list" cited by Verbose was reprinted in Fischer's book and can be found here (http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs34.htm). The most striking plan cited by Betthman-Hollweg was the creating of a pan-European economic union dominated by Germany.

I think it would have depended alot on when the war would have been won and especially how.
That especially concerns Britain. How bad would it have lost it? An invasion is highly unlikely in any scenario. What else? The factual elimination of the Royal Navy (probabilities aside), perhaps?

The treaty of Brest-Litowsk is a fact, as such the handling (at least temporarily, but likely much more) of Eastern Europe, in particular Russia, is pretty obvious in a 1918 scenario.
I think it is unlikely that much, if any, French heartland territory would have been permanently occupied.

Imperial Germany would have tried to enforce a peace treaty with one prime objective, being to ensure hegemony in Europe. As such reparations would have been demanded from France and Britain, as well as some overseas territories. And here much depends on how Britain would have lost. A limitation of naval capacity would have been a definite result, as well as a limitation of colonies and hence economic capability, factually destroying the French and British empires. As part of that the Ottomans would have gained control of the Middle East and possibly North Africa.

What is far more interesting that the exact terms of such a peace would have been the outcome of it decades in the future. As we can't exactly say it all went well the way it went it might be provocative but still not impossible to think that it might have turned out better in the long run.
It shouldn't be forgotten that Imperial Germany was in many ways a highly anachronistic entity and that Germany had been fertile ground for political philosophy and subsequent movements in the 100 years between the Napoleonic Wars and WWI.

I'm rather sure that the empire as it was in 1914 would have fallen sooner or later, probably sooner, in favour of a more just political system. Then of course that again would have beared the possibility of civil war and so you can continue all those what-if's on and on... ;)

I'm not sure if Germany would necessarily fall, but I can't see how Austria-Hungary would have survived indefinately (and there is no question that the Ottoman Empire wouldn't be able to keep any land it conquers).

That would seem to make sense.

Wasn't Bulgaria a Central power? I never really understood their motivations, so I don't know what they would want to gain post war (maybe parts of Romania or Serbia, but that seems about it).

Bulgaria joined the axis because that was the only way to get Macedonia.
All the wars that Bulgaria was part of after the independance were aimed at the creation of a Bulgarian state that would unite all Bulgarians.

That is why after the first Balkan war the Bulgarians were not happy even though they got a huge territory boost. The prolem was that this territory was populated mostly by Turks and we wanted Macedonia which was populated mostly by Bulgarians.

post the map!

Am I the only one here who thinks that even if the Central Powers won the First World War, that the Ottoman Empire would still have fallen apart?

Am I the only one here who thinks that even if the Central Powers won the First World War, that the Ottoman Empire would still have fallen apart?

Any interesting question if we're talking about the 1918 variation. On the one hand, a victory after losing so many wars may have provided a respite for the Empire. But on the other hand, Kemel Ataturk may have had something to say about the viability of the regime. ...

Hitro is spot-on that it depended wholeheartedly on when the war ended to be able to gauge Germany's disposition. A swift victory in 1914 probably would have left Berlin somewhat more magnanimous - although even then, the "hawks" surrounding Wilhelm II wanted this war to be a final showdown with Russia and France that would decisively remove them as threats to German ambitions. It was not going to be a temporary solution like occupation of the coast or some border fortresses for a decade; it was to be a permanent solution.

Had the war ended in 1916 or 1917 with a German victory, well as already stated the treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest fairly accurately reflect the German mentality. Recall that even in Germany there was astonishment at the nakedly imperialistic tones of those treaties, as Hitler bitterly complains about in Mein Kampf.

The most striking plan cited by Betthman-Hollweg was the creating of a pan-European economic union dominated by Germany.

Mitteleuropa. Some see this as an early predecessor to the EU, though obviously with an important difference in that in Mitteleuropa Europe would be harnessed to the German economy in a servile manner.

Wasn't Bulgaria a Central power? I never really understood their motivations, so I don't know what they would want to gain post war (maybe parts of Romania or Serbia, but that seems about it).

Sir Og covered this well. In its origins the First World War was really just the Third Balkan War (after the 1912-13 wars), with the added twist that this time the Great Powers became involved and things got out of hand...

I remember reading that the Hungarians did not want to share their rights with other ethinic groups (once they got it themselves). It wasn't Austrian policy to share the monarchy, it was something they were forced to do because of Nationalism. The biggest problem Serbia posed is it inspired nationalism within Austria itself (the Serb population wasn't that small even then). If they did get the Ukraine, there would be a huge increase in lands held by Ukranians, but I don't think they would share power with them (at least not unless they absolutely had to).

The Ottoman and Habsburg empires of 1914-18 were doomed. The Hungarians and Habsburg Emperor stalled with the declaration of war in July 1914 not because they feared losing the war but they feared winning it - likely bringing more Serbs into the Empire, further de-stabilizing it. The Habsburgs had an opportunity in the 1870s and 80s to reform themselves in a way that most of the nationalities would have likely accepted, but by 1914 it was too late. Similarly, there was a growing Arab nationalism in the 19th century that had by 1914 come to see the Ottoman Empire as a usurper, especially after the Young Turks coup. Many Arab nationalists still today refuse to recognize the Ottomans as a proper Islamic empire/state.

On a personal level, Germany would likely have revived the old "Kongresówka" Poland as a rump puppet state, dependent on Germany and highly anti-Russian.

How would Iberia like?

Would the Habsburg Empire have been turned into a Tri-monarchy including Austria, Hungary and Slawia? The policy of the Habsburgs was to keep their multi-ethnical empire under control by 'sharing' power with the second big population part, the Hungarians, wasn't it? Now, if we assume that Austria would annex Serbia, there would be another big population group that at this moment, had no power. Would the Austrians therefore create a 'more stable' tri-monarchy government, according to the dual monarchy that existed before the war?
One of the ironies of the murder of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914 is that this "tri-monarchy" thing was one of his pet ideas. It was to counterbalance the Hungarians, that were pretty much extorting Vienna to let them run themselves as they saw fit. A huge number of slavs might work as a counterbalance it was thougt. Exactly how they were going to make it work is anybody's guess. On closer reflection, it was an idea that most likely would never have flown.

Thanks for the enlightment, Verbose .... ;)

mfG mitsho

How would Iberia like?

The Iberian Peninsula itself would likely see little change as Spain stayed neutral but Portugal, as a very pro-British ally, would likely have lost what was left of its colonial empire. This is moot anyway because the pre-war negotiations provoked by the two Morocco crises saw Britain already offering Germany Portuguese colonies.

The Portuguese actions in ww1 were the most useless of all. They were beaten by small German colonial forces. Over the extent of Portuguese troop on other fronts I do not know. However Portugal lost in this war many lifes for nothing.

Adler

That would seem to make sense.

Wasn't Bulgaria a Central power? I never really understood their motivations, so I don't know what they would want to gain post war (maybe parts of Romania or Serbia, but that seems about it).

In fact Bulgaria obtain - fortunately just temporary - a significant part or Romania after "Treaty from Bucharest", the maritimal province of Dobrogea ( except harbour Constanta and a railway to it ). :mad:

This is a little bit strage - because ~20-30 years before there was a plan to form a Romanian-Bulgarian ( with possible addition of Serbia later ) confederacy, following the "belgian model", under the rule of a german prince ( Carol I Hohenzolern - ruling in Romania at this time ) and with ( some ) blessing from England ... :rolleyes:

Regards,

P.S. : In southern part of Ukraine/Moldavia there still are ( and of course there was even more that time ) a significant number of bulgarians speakers - so by ocupping Dobrogea in 1918 seems somehow possible to "link" them to main Bulgaria ... :mischief:

heh
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=108282

I'll just post the map here

http://img135.exs.cx/img135/9636/euroalt8sl.th.gif (http://img135.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img135&image=euroalt8sl.gif)

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting (http://www.imageshack.us)

Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, Holland, and Belgium are all "vassals" of Germany.
Rumania, due to it's new geographic reality, would be much more pro-german

France would have had to pay indemneties to germany, and has limits on its military.

I'm pretty sure Germany would have taken more than that. The declaration of war goals in 1917 said they'd annex all (or at least most of) what is nowadays known as the Baltic States.

I'm pretty sure Germany would have taken more than that. The declaration of war goals in 1917 said they'd annex all (or at least most of) what is nowadays known as the Baltic States.

hummmmm

good point.

Well, Germans and Austro-Hungarians promessed creating (puppet, of course) Polish kingdom. Assuming they'd keep they promess, it'd be the Congress kingdom, perhaps except for Chelm (given to Ukraine) and western edges (which Germans planned to take), perhaps enlaged in direction of Lithuania.

a new map will be posted within 30 minutes. likely 5, but I dont want to limit myself.

I do not think the annexion plans would have been made true since in the peace of Brest- Litowsk Germany didn´t annex anything but gave independence to many nations of the former Russian empire. So although these plans existed the map of Europe would look like pretty much like the one at the top of this page. Also "Mitteleuropa" would have chnaged to a real EU over the years.

Adler

Even if Austria-Hungary were able to get Serbia and parts of Italy, they'd be plagued with revolts. Same with the Ottomans with whatever territory they conquered. The Germans would too, but not as bad of ones. In the east I'd guess that they'd have less, since they set up a puppet Kingdom of Poland in 1915 out of captured Russian territory and the Ukrainians hated the Russians. Even the ethnic Russians wouldn't cause too much of a problem, since Russians were not very nationalistic. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they did this, however, but I doubt there'd be a complete end to the Greek state. They might not get much except for some islands. Remember that at the time, Bulgaria had the Greek-speaking northern Aegean coast, so Greece shared no border with the Ottomans. But the Bulgarians would get something, too.

Rumania, due to it's new geographic reality, would be much more pro-german

It's spelled "Romania". I hate it when people call it Rumania.

But Romania shouldn't have named itself Romania. Romania was the official name of Byzantine Empire... I know, I know, but I do not like it. In Polish, it's Rumunia.

In Spanish, It is also Rumania....

In Greek is also spelled Rumania .

If you want to see what could happen play Hearts of Iron with The Great War mod ...