Clemenceau doesn't receive a vote of confidence, 1917

[1940LaSalle]

In Illusions of Victory, Thomas Fleming reported that Clemenceau came close to losing a vote of confidence in the Chamber of Deputies in late 1917. Had that vote gone against him, Joseph Caillaux would have become premier--and would have brought with him sizable defeatist sentiment. Likely France would have quickly sought a separate peace, leaving the US, Great Britain, and assorted lesser allies (e.g., Portugal) to their own devices on the Western Front.

So what happens if indeed Caillaux supersedes Clemenceau? A few thoughts:

* A separate peace ensures that Elsaß-Lothringen remains German.
* Belgium may be split into Flanders (annexed outright to Germany) and Wallonia (administered as a client state).
* Some French colonies in Africa (e.g., part of French Equatorial Africa) would be ceded to Germany, giving the Germans a belt of territory across the midsection of Africa.

More to follow.

 

[stevep]

In Illusions of Victory, Thomas Fleming reported that Clemenceau came close to losing a vote of confidence in the Chamber of Deputies in late 1917. Had that vote gone against him, Joseph Caillaux would have become premier--and would have brought with him sizable defeatist sentiment. Likely France would have quickly sought a separate peace, leaving the US, Great Britain, and assorted lesser allies (e.g., Portugal) to their own devices on the Western Front.

So what happens if indeed Caillaux supersedes Clemenceau? A few thoughts:

* A separate peace ensures that Elsaß-Lothringen remains German.
* Belgium may be split into Flanders (annexed outright to Germany) and Wallonia (administered as a client state).
* Some French colonies in Africa (e.g., part of French Equatorial Africa) would be ceded to Germany, giving the Germans a belt of territory across the midsection of Africa.

More to follow.

1940LaSalle

I think the devil would be in the detail. With Russia having fallen to revolution a demoralised France might have accepted such terms if Germany had withdrawn from the rest of France but would it have agreed to that. In hindsight it would have been wise to but already holding so much of France and scenting a decisive victory I suspect they would be that intelligent. If Germany starts demanding large additional chunks of France I suspect that a government which tried to accept such terms might well fall in turn.

Also this would leave France very isolated, having abandon their allies. Not sure what Britain and the US would do and whether they might try and hold a pocket in Northern France to continue the war. I think, unless there is a more general peace acceptable to Britain and the US it wouldn't be the end of the conflict. Also you can forget any German territories in central Africa under those circumstances.

Steve

 

[1940LaSalle]

1940LaSalle

I think the devil would be in the detail. With Russia having fallen to revolution a demoralised France might have accepted such terms if Germany had withdrawn from the rest of France but would it have agreed to that. In hindsight it would have been wise to but already holding so much of France and scenting a decisive victory I suspect they would be that intelligent. If Germany starts demanding large additional chunks of France I suspect that a government which tried to accept such terms might well fall in turn.

Also this would leave France very isolated, having abandon their allies. Not sure what Britain and the US would do and whether they might try and hold a pocket in Northern France to continue the war. I think, unless there is a more general peace acceptable to Britain and the US it wouldn't be the end of the conflict. Also you can forget any German territories in central Africa under those circumstances.

Steve

Can't argue at all with your point about the US and Great Britain continuing (I was toying with the idea of the US and British armies joining in northeastern France, along with the lesser allies; e.g., Portugal). I'd guess that after a separate peace with France, Germany could focus its resources on a relatively small front, perhaps forcing an evacuation that would lead to a sporadic naval war and a stalemate-induced peace.

I could also see Germany wresting some part of French Equatorial Africa as sort of blackmail: give it up or else we're within striking distance of Paris, and we already hold a lot of your iron and coal.

 

[Wendell]

How about Wallonia being given by the Germans to France?


Seriously though, I see the Germans still losing most of their colonies outside of Europe ITTL, and gaining none. The Germans may keep Eastern Europe as their zone of influence, however. Further, if the Germans retain any colonies, it would be Tanganyika, and maybe one or two islands.

 

[1940LaSalle]

I guess my point was that, in the event of a separate peace with France, Germany would have been dealing from a position of relative strength given the amount of French territory occupied. That would lead to a tit-for-tat: we'll evacuate to the pre-1914 borders but to do so we want a chunk of Equatorial Africa.

I don't think the Germans would deal as kindly with the Belgians, given the franc-tireur episodes: I could see Wallonia either being cut loose and handed over to France (or united with Luxembourg?) and Flanders becoming incorporated wholly into the Reich--or presented to the Netherlands in exchange for future considerations. But the ultimate punishment for Belgium would be the loss of the Congo (and given the track record of the Belgians as colonial administrators, transfer to the Germans could very well constitute a significant upgrade: their human rights record was...well, let's just say Amnesty International would have not been pleased.)

Seems to me that after negotiating a separate peace with France, the combined US/British/minor Allies force would likely have to decamp for Great Britain or risk annihilation in northeastern France and Belgium. Thus, by mid-to-late 1918, the continent is essentially in the grip of the Central Powers or client/collaborator states thereof. Otherwise, Great Britain and the US control the oceans. (By this time, the Japanese would have captured the Bismarck Archipelago with ease.) The blockade noose would be tightening, forcing perhaps one breakout battle pitting virtually the entire High Seas Fleet against the Royal Navy--say, off the Old Head of Kinsale sometime in 1919.

As Jutland was a draw/narrow pyrrhic German victory, so Kinsale would be another draw, but this one would convince both sides that the war was indeed stalemated. Thus, an offer from Switzerland, Sweden, and the Papacy to mediate a peace would be accepted. Negotiations would proceed through the balance of 1919 and on into 1920.

 

[Wendell]

Why not annex Luxembourg-includig Belgian Luxembourg, and, maybe Liege, into the Reich?

 

[Max Sinister]

The Germans weren't that sure about what to do with Belgium. Only annex Liege, only Flanders and make Wallonia a satellite, or the other way round, or give Wallonia to France as a compensation?

And although in the scenario the sanest solution would be to keep the conquests in the East and make a compromise in the west, I don't see the Germans do that. They've beaten Russia, they've beaten France, it was a hard work, so they'll demand compensation. Longwy-Briey and Mittelafrika are the minimum.

 

[Douglas]

I guess my point was that, in the event of a separate peace with France, Germany would have been dealing from a position of relative strength given the amount of French territory occupied. That would lead to a tit-for-tat: we'll evacuate to the pre-1914 borders but to do so we want a chunk of Equatorial Africa.

I don't think the Germans would deal as kindly with the Belgians, given the franc-tireur episodes: I could see Wallonia either being cut loose and handed over to France (or united with Luxembourg?) and Flanders becoming incorporated wholly into the Reich--or presented to the Netherlands in exchange for future considerations. But the ultimate punishment for Belgium would be the loss of the Congo (and given the track record of the Belgians as colonial administrators, transfer to the Germans could very well constitute a significant upgrade: their human rights record was...well, let's just say Amnesty International would have not been pleased.)

Seems to me that after negotiating a separate peace with France, the combined US/British/minor Allies force would likely have to decamp for Great Britain or risk annihilation in northeastern France and Belgium. Thus, by mid-to-late 1918, the continent is essentially in the grip of the Central Powers or client/collaborator states thereof. Otherwise, Great Britain and the US control the oceans. (By this time, the Japanese would have captured the Bismarck Archipelago with ease.) The blockade noose would be tightening, forcing perhaps one breakout battle pitting virtually the entire High Seas Fleet against the Royal Navy--say, off the Old Head of Kinsale sometime in 1919.

As Jutland was a draw/narrow pyrrhic German victory, so Kinsale would be another draw, but this one would convince both sides that the war was indeed stalemated. Thus, an offer from Switzerland, Sweden, and the Papacy to mediate a peace would be accepted. Negotiations would proceed through the balance of 1919 and on into 1920.

Plausible-ish. Handing France some of Belgium would also allow Caillaux to point and say "see! see! we did get something!" although he would still probably lose power.

However, any naval battle in 1919 is not going to be a draw. Jutland was only a draw due to ridiculously bad communication between the British commanders, as well as quite a bit of luck on Scheer's part at nightfall. A naval battle in 1919, when the RN has another 6-8 capital ships, as well as whatever the US can provide (4 at the least), will be a resounding Allied victory.

In fact, it could be this naval battle that causes the riots to finally break out, now that the blockade's firm squeeze on German food supplies is guaranteed.

 

[1940LaSalle]

Plausible-ish. Handing France some of Belgium would also allow Caillaux to point and say "see! see! we did get something!" although he would still probably lose power.

However, any naval battle in 1919 is not going to be a draw. Jutland was only a draw due to ridiculously bad communication between the British commanders, as well as quite a bit of luck on Scheer's part at nightfall. A naval battle in 1919, when the RN has another 6-8 capital ships, as well as whatever the US can provide (4 at the least), will be a resounding Allied victory.

In fact, it could be this naval battle that causes the riots to finally break out, now that the blockade's firm squeeze on German food supplies is guaranteed.

Not bad. That has a lot of possibilities (as they say in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum", something for everyone...): the Germans get a quasi-victory over France but have to sue for peace (a face-saving one, one might surmise) with Great Britain and the US after going down in a blaze of glory (pardon the hyperbole) at Kinsale; the French get thrown a few scraps in the form of Wallonia even after getting stomped; the US and Great Britain coming out on top with more or less joing suzerainty over the Atlantic (OK, Belgium kind of gets the shaft as does Russia, but still...).

It also sows the seeds for future what-ifs: France would be essentially isolated (you think London or Washington would give Paris so much as the time of day after suing for a separate peace? think again) and might well turn fascist at some point. Ironically, I don't think Germany would turn fascist: the quasi-victory might be just enough to allow the Weimar Republic to survive. Thus, a future European conflict might match the dictatorial powers (Italy; Spain; France; Soviet Union) against the (quasi-)republics (US; Great Britain; Germany; Austria). The wild card in the deck would be Japan: do they throw in with the republics in an attempt to grab off part of Siberia or do they throw in with the dictators in an attempt to gain their place in the sun at the expense of the US and Great Britain in the Pacific? Or do they sit this one out, looking to pick up the pieces?

This also has the potential for a South American component: would it be possible for Argentina, with its sizable Italian contingency, to throw in with the dictators, going after (let's say) Uruguay, Bolivia, or Paraguay?

 

[JHPier]

IMO restoring Belgium into somethimg resembling its pre-war state would be a sine qua non for any sort of peace between Britain and Germany, even following a German win on the continent.
After all the British went to war over Belgium. They're not going to sell it down the river as long as the RN rules the waves.
(Though they wouldn't bother very much over the Congo.)

Which makes discussions about what the Germans would have liked to do to it kinda moot.

"... the quasi-victory might be just enough to allow the Weimar Republic to survive." Actually the quasi-victory might be just enough to allow the Empire to survive.
As well as the Habsburg Empire. (Though that's more dubious.)

 

[DuQuense]

Almost any senerio that stops the shooting in 1917, and has the war being moved just to the High Seas and still ungoing in 1919, gives Germany a year to bring the Polish, & Ukraine farmland back.

This plus the setting up of the little German baltic states, allows Germany to sit out any attemped British Blockade.

Germany loses all it's colonies, Thro East Africa would be interesting ITTL.