Peace with the Central Powers

Peace with the Central Powers

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

The fighting in World War I was halted by the signing of an armistice on November 11, 1918. The United States, in a bitter struggle between President Wilson and determined Senate leaders, refused to take the next step and ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which was concluded in June 1919.Wilson was certainly the equal of Henry Cabot Lodge, the Senate leader, in stubbornness. Wilson hoped to force acceptance of the Treaty, including its provisions for the League of Nations — minus the reservations preferred by Lodge. An effort to force the Senate’s hand by making the Election of 1920 a referendum on Wilson’s version of the peace failed miserably and passed the question on to the administration of Republican Warren G. Harding.Harding had waffled shamelessly on the Treaty issue during the campaign, but made it clear upon entering office that he would not seek membership in the League. The United States proclaimed its right to the privileges granted the other Allied nations in the Treaty, but assumed no corresponding obligations.In late August, separate treaties were concluded with Germany, Austria and Hungary. had not declared war on those nations.These matters of diplomatic housekeeping drew little public notice at the time and paled in comparison to the events of the Washington Conference, which convened in November 1921.

See other diplomatic issues during the Harding administration.

Central Powers

The Central Powers, also known as the Central Empires, [1] [notes 1] was one of the two main coalitions that fought World War I (1914–18). It consisted of Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria hence it is also known as the Quadruple Alliance. [2] [notes 2] Colonies of these countries also fought on the Central Powers' side such as the Micronesia and German East Africa, until almost all of their colonies were occupied by Allies.

  • Leaders of the Central Powers (left to right):
  • Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany
  • Kaiser and King Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary
  • Sultan Mehmed V of the Ottoman Empire ( constitutional)
  • Tsar Ferdinand I of Bulgaria

The Central Powers faced and were defeated by the Allied Powers that had formed around the Triple Entente. The Central Powers' origin was the alliance of Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1879. Despite having nominally joined the Triple Alliance before, Italy did not take part in World War I on the side of the Central Powers. The Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria did not join until after World War I had begun, even though the Ottoman Empire had retained close relations with both Germany and Austria-Hungary since the beginning of the 20th century.

Treaties Signed

During the course of the Paris Peace Conference, three treaties were signed with members of the former Central Powers, with two additional treaties finalized after the official closing of the conference in January 1920. The first, and most significant, was the Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28, 1919. Despite the multitude of issues to address and the lack of a clear agenda, the “Big Four” saw Germany as the top priority prevailing sentiment perceived Germany as initiating war in 1914.

It was clear, however, that different desired outcomes existed, especially as Clemenceau insisted Germany be geographically and militarily dismembered so to never again pose a threat to France. The most contentious issue, and most remembered today, was the question of reparations. Ultimately, Germany and its allies were assigned responsibility for all war damages but exact payment amounts were left unspecified.

The German delegates following Mr. Brockdorff-Rantzau, leaving the house where the Peace Treaty was handed to them in Versailles, 1919.

The German delegation, not present throughout any of the discussions, was presented with the draft of the treaty in May 1919. After trying and failing to negotiate some of the more severe terms and facing threats of resumed war should they not sign, the German delegates signed the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919 in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles.

Map of territory lost by Germany. (Click to enlarge.)

Having concluded terms of peace with Germany, the Allies turned their attention to the remaining former Central Powers. The Treaty of Saint-Germain, signed on September 10, 1919, formally dissolved the Austro-Hungarian Empire and forced the new Republic of Austria to accept the independence of over 60 percent of its former territory. This territory included the new nations of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, as well as part of Poland.

Bulgaria signed the Treaty of Neuilly a couple of months later, losing territory to the new Yugoslavia and all access to the Aegean Sea. Hungary, now an independent state following its separation from Austria less than a month before the Armistice, lost two-thirds of its former territory and 58 percent of its population in the Treaty of Trianon, signed on June 4, 1920.

Mehmed V, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire until his death in July 1918, c. 1914-1915.

The final treaty of the Paris Peace Conference, The Treaty of Sevres, was signed in August of 1920 between the Allies and the former Ottoman Empire. Although accepted by Sultan Mehmed VI, it was rejected by Mustafa Kemal, a Turk nationalist then leading a war for independence. Negotiations between Kemal’s representatives and the Allies finally resulted in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which recognized the new nation of Turkey. This proved the longest-lasting of all the Paris treaties, a testament to equal negotiations between participants and the acceptance of compromise.

A view of Smyrna (now in modern day Turkey) taken from the USS Arizona in 1919.

Peace with the Central Powers - History

I'm posting on the premise that the Central Powers either won the war because the United States never intervened on the Allied side, or after doing so, was badly mauiled by the Germans, That would have greatly fortified American isolationism.

Another unrecognized variable is how far along the general movement toward parliamentary pluralism would have been able to advance in Central Europe had the Germans been victorious. Regardless, the agitiation for Marxism would have been suppressed by the victors, just as in the Russia of 1919-21, and probably more viciously.

Poland would not have been reconstituted, and while the pogroms would have continued, the overwhelming, but less-assimilated portion of European Jewry in the land mass between Berlin and Moscow would have survived. Zionism wold have continued, possibly intensifed, but the problem of an Israeli homeland would not have been addressed.

The victorious Central Powers would likely have placed more emphasis on mercantilism than free trade however, that might have eventually brought home the point that a colonial empire is costly to maintain, and the agitation spawned in India by Ghandi would likely have spread and intensified.

Britain would likewse have found the domestic social programs (whch were bradened and instensified, primarily under Lloyd George), too much of a burden. Britain might have gravitated toward fascism/populism, but i suspect the French would simply have devolved back toward a simpler, weaker, less-industrialized society in the mold of Italy.

The Balkans would have remained "Balkanized", but Germany would have put a damper on any potentially-emerging dominant Balkan state, since there would be no other power, such as France or Russia, to back it. Ditto for the Iberian peninsula, and South America would have seen mucmore German influence. Holland, Switzeland and Scandinavia would have had no choice but to "go along to get along".

As previously stated, American isolationist sentiment would have remained strong, and similar feelings among the Australians and New Zealanders, who were badly mauled at Gallipoli, might have drawn the two nations, not to mention the Canadians, closer together. Canadian ties to England would have been somewhat loosened, and agitation among various groups within might have led to a waekening of the Dominion, or a breakup into several component states, loodely federated and , in the case of Quebec, possibly completely separated.

So it would have been likely a mixed blessing no twenty-year intermission before a second, and bloodier round of warfare, but far less progress toward either true parliamenary democracy, or rule by the markets rather than rule by the sword.

Good points, just a couple of observations.

France - Moreso then Britain I think France following a defeat was ripe for the rise of an ultra-nationalist government. As it was France experienced a large nationalist movement in the interwar years and if that movement is coupled with a defeat in WW1, it may have become even more influential then it was. The prospect of a French "Hitler" could be very real following a defeat.

The Balkans - The status of the Balkans very much would hinge on the status of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. In a scenario where the Central Powers win, does that mean that Austria-Hungary remains in existence? Does the Ottoman Empire survive and regain its lost Balkans territories as a result? The status of these two fragile powers in any proposed scenario where the Central Powers win has a massive bearing on what the Balkans would look like.

Treaty of Brest-Litovsk: Background

Russia’s involvement in World War I alongside its allies, France and Britain, had resulted in a number of heavy losses against Germany, offset only partially by consistent victories against Austria-Hungary. Defeat on the battlefield fed the growing discontent among the bulk of Russia’s population, especially the poverty-stricken workers and peasants, and its hostility toward the imperial regime, led by the ineffectual Czar Nicholas II (1868-1918). This discontent strengthened the cause of the Bolsheviks, a radical socialist group led by Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) that was working to harness opposition to the czar and turn it into a sweeping revolution that would begin in Russia and later, he hoped, spread to the rest of the world.

Did you know? Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky was exiled from the Soviet Union in the late 1920s after losing a power struggle with Joseph Stalin. Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico in 1940 by a Spanish-born Soviet agent.

The February Revolution broke out in early March 1917 (or February, according to the Julian calendar, which the Russians used at the time) Nicholas abdicated later that month. After Lenin’s return from exile (aided by the Germans) in mid-April, he and his fellow Bolsheviks worked quickly to seize power from the provisional government, led by Alexander Kerensky, Russia’s minister of war. In early November, aided by the Russian military, they were successful. One of Lenin’s first actions as leader was to call a halt to Russian participation in the war.

USA joins the Central Powers.

I will just say that I, as an American, love Canada and especially their poutine, which I can't seem to find here.

My opinions on this subject were not meant to be offensive. Good day.


Which means little since almost all of the Entente soldiers are in Europe, and the US won't be coming over, they'll go north into Canada, forcing the British to either pull out of Europe, or watch their best dominion get knocked down. Oh sure they might be able to survive until 1916 by shifting the forces that went to Gallipoli into Canada (at least the Imperial part of the force), but eventually the US is going to do them over, while at the same time, the CP will not be so badly affected as the US will not now turn away Deutschland and her sisters, and may in fact help her build more, thus a small amount of trade can be kept open.

And? Still better than the Royal Canadian Navy


The point is, the Entente has the military resources to fight in Europe and North America.

And keeping trade open through a British blockade (of Germany) . .. yeaaaah, that's going to be easy.

Britain doesn't have to face "pull out of Europe or lose Canada". It can send troops to both.

Which is only part of what the US will be facing when the Royal Navy is larger than it and the German Navy put together, the French navy is almost equal in size (going by total tonnage since that's what I have to work with, so if you have better info, please pass it on).

While I agree with this in itself, my point is that the US is less able to boost Germany and Austria-Hungary than it was able OTL to boost France and Britain.

It's going to be a war of exhaustion, just as OTL, and the US trying seriously to dictate terms is going to be a challenge.


That is IF there is a Gallipoli campaign ITTL. It may not be considered worth moving forces from other theaters based on the possibility of knocking out the Ottomans, and Churchill (was he the one who advocated it? If not, whoever came up with it, can't recall off memory at the moment) may not consider it as good an idea. The Ottomans may even be neutral.

The OP said immediately at the start of the war, and at the start it was Germany + Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria, the Ottomans had not jumped in yet.

EDIT: I broke the quote function :|



Chances are there won't even be any active combat between Canada and the US, the Canadians aren't insane. Why would anyone believe that Canada would risk everything in an insane gambit with very little reward?

They'll either ask London to stop this retarded war with the US, or if that doesn't work, demand to be kicked out of the Empire.

Monty Burns

Absolutely. But Germany managed to kick out the eastern great power, occupied large parts of France for a long time and the entente was heavily dependent on American money.

Additionally, it's questionable whether all secondary powers would have joined the Entente ITTL, weakening the Entente even more. What do you think: would Italy join the Entente here? It's at least somewhat less likely. What about Japan? Latin American countries (only important in economic terms, though)?

The RN will rule the seas and blockade both the US and Germany. With time passing by, both Germany and the US will try to challenge that, probably not to any more success than Germany had IOTL and also much later, but that will bind more and more ressources from Britain. The naval war will cost Britain much more in terms of money, which they did not have enough IOTL.

What about submarine warfare? Would both the US and Germany go for unrestricted submarine warfare early on and throughout the war? By far not a game changer, but it makes the situation for Britain even more difficult.

Colonial troops. But others only early in the war, right? Series question here from my side?

Anyway, let's assume that Britain had those men and didn't use them (at least not in the first years). ITTL, they would have to use them, raising internal problems and also further economic problems: those men are missing as workers at home, but on the other side they need supplies and ammunition.

I don't expect major naval engagements - at least not early in the war but only later when the US built more ships, likely of inferior quality and largely untrained crews. However, the RN has much more coastline to guard and has to prepare a second fleet able to face the US. That's costly and that won't win them the war. OTOH, as I said earlier, CP submarine warfare would be more widespread.

I don't expect the navies to play any important role in the war beside the blockade (without which Germany would have had a better chance to win even IOTL). But it will be costly for all sides. Now while the Germans likely wouldn't change much, the US would spend an awful lot of money (likely without return), but they can afford that best. Britain has more to spend as well, and IOTL they only had money up to 1917.

I'd rather expect CP cooperation to be more or less like the cooperation between Japan and the Nazis. Separate war theatres, common enemies. There might be more cooperation in technology, though.

The point really is that Britain pretty much has to face that theatre on its own, making their war effort much more difficult and much more costly. Given that it's been a war of exhaustion in Europe even IOTL, that should win the Germans the war.

Even though this is a highly unstandard "CP win scenario", one thing remains: nobody can really dictate Britain a peace treaty because nobody will be able to invade Britain. Quite likely the war ends with France asking for an armistice ITTL, with Russia already out. At the same time, the US will stay within Canada - not sure how much they hold, though, and if they managed something in the Carribean islands at all.

Then it'll get funny: the US would likely want all of Canada and likely would be willing to continue the war, Britain won't give up anything that's not occupied. The European CP, on the other side, will want the war to end as soon as possible, a white peace with Britain is acceptable for them when France and Russia have to bleed.


Why would America want to annex so much territory inhabited by people that would now hate Americans? Aside from resources, which at the time weren't easy to dig out of the ground (lumber is different), annexing half of the second largest territorial unit on the planet wouldn't be worth the hassle. Just because the Entente can't defend it doesn't mean the Americans are automatically going to annex it.

British Columbia and Maine's full claims, at most.

Compared to how many people are actually there vs how many Americans there are, it wont make a difference.

All notable population centers are fairly close to the US-Canadian border with few if any exceptions. The Vancouver area is about the most populous east of the Great Lakes.

Other than that, there just isnt that many people. Most of them wont even really notice a difference. Its a new frontier. A colder frontier but more than big enough to get lost in if you so desire.

In fact. that could be part of the propaganda. good nite yall.

Richter von Manthofen

Why should Canada be able to hold off the US in 1914?

At the start of OTLs war canada boasted an amry in the mid 4 digit range (+ militia I concur) within 2 months that expanded to a mere 32.000 men.

ITTL that expansion might be larger, much larger, but the US will expand much faster.

The US fleet boasted the third largest number of subs (more than Germany) in mid 1914. The disparity between US and UK was mainly in the number of Cruisers and other small ships.

UK 20 Dreads + 9 BC
Germany 15 dreads + 4 BC
US 10 dreads + 0 BC

UK could NOT spare any significant number of dreads to "curbstomp the US fleet" withiout risking an attack by the Hochseeflotte (UK COULD still blockade Germany as OTL)

If UK sends an significant part of the fleet to the US it will face an attack by Germany which has a much shorter attack lane. But the US would also NOT send its fleet over the atlantic - same reason as the UK can't do it.

First impact will be a hit on UK overseas trade.

Germany would probably be able to save the Ostasiengeschwader by linking it up with the US Pacific(Asiatic) fleet - The US entry would also force Australia and NZ to maintain a larger presence at home thus NOT sending (many) troops to UK - this would probably prevent OTLs Gallipoli disaster.

More important US entry would also endanger UK positions in Asia (NO attack required just the threat is enough)

Italy would probably NOT join the Entente - even if it does not link up with the CPs it saves A-H much headache.

Conclusion: Even if the US is not actually doing much it "soaks" up many Entente resources.

Initialy the "European" war will develop as OTL (14/early 15) but more A-H troops in the East and Balkans will ultimately count in late15 /16.

Romania might also not join if CP make even a little more progress up to 1916 compared to OTL (even more German/A-H troops in the OE are possible)

I expect an - initially little - better performance of the Cps but it will "build up" quickly. I assume an armistice in early 1917.

The russian monarchy might survive (as does the A-H, Ottoman and German)

The Brits will have to "surrender" something - a few islands to US and some African land to Germany

France will lose more - mostly to Germany. - Something for italy is possible.

Turkey will expand eastwards (Persia probably a bit of the Caucasus)

(Egypt likely be really independent - at least compared to OTL )

Poland will be independent (probably also getting access to the baltic through Lituania) - a buffer set up by Germany vs Russia.

Italy might get the Trentino (+ some French bits and pieces) - a price to be paid by A-H.

A-H will survive at least a few decades more. - Serbia might be annexed, but probbably "only" demilitarized" and constantly supervised. - Probably Bulgaria gets a few pieces.

UK will lose its dominant" power status to Germany and the US (which will probably gain most in this scenario)

No independence for Finland and the other baltics.


If this war is looked at in a void with exactly OTL deployments and such at the outset of the war then the USA will most likely drop out due to public outrage at stepping into a european war.

Without a detailed timeline describing differences from OTL and deployments/resources and the like there can be no definitive conclusion made as the different cross Atlantic dynamic will have shifted some of the alliance systems and the build up dynamic totally.

Oh and as for the Japanese Navy being a non-player in any way in WW1 it was certainly able to fight a pacific campaign even then, with Japan seizing Pacific Islands including German Micronesia and the Marshal Islands. Oh also Japan launched the first ever Aircraft Carrier assault. random fact.

Oh also the 4 Kongo-class BCs were the most deadly in the world at this time totting out 14" main guns and this matches 40% of the USN's capital ships at this point.

But yeah unless a proper in depth analysis of where and when the US had such horrific relations with the Entente as to risk a land war in its own back garden, no proper analysis can be made.


I agree that Japan would definitely be a factor. Japan was the UK's first official ally in the 20th century, and the Phillipines would make an interesting target for them, especially if the receive some Royal Navy support.

One should consider the Japanese performance against Russia in 1904/05. In 1914, they fought the most recent major war and won.

I also agree that the Canadians cannot hold their ground on their own. Even if they triple their WW1-army when compared to OTL, they end up with three times four divisions.
Thus, they will most probably siphon off British forces from the Western Front, at the latest by early 1916 when US gearing up should be in full swing.
Would the Entente even go on the offensive under these circumstances? Or would the Somme fall flat and the battle for Verdun (if the Germans still take that option) rages on throughout the year with full German and French commitment to it?

Neutral Canada, would that be feasible?

OTOH, how long would it take London until they start to Zimmermann the Mexicans? Siding with the British Empire would be more favourable than with the CP, but sufficiently so in order to act?

Submarine warfare. would it be given less priority if there is more room for "traditional" engagements? Or would the Germans and Americans run wild together, nobody refraining the unrestricted submarine warfare?

A more random thought, but I still wish to share it: under these circumstances, how probable is a "very German US army". The decades prior to 1914 have been the zenith of German US immigration, so if the US seeks for citizens who have at least basic military experience, there should be a large percentage of Germans among them. who had been drafted before they later decided to move to America.

At first I thought most of you guys were underestimating the impact of the US Navy if it joined the CP's but on further review.

The thing that stands out with the US Navy of 1914 is that it's SLOW.

The lack of Battlecruisers and the slow speed of most of the Armoured/Protected cruisers means the US would have a hard time commerce raiding even though they'd be primed to do it geographically. The U.S only had 2 SCOUT (LIGHT), 5 protected cruisers and six armoured cruisers with speeds over 20kts and they top out at 22 kts.

If the Brits committed their BC's to hunting US commerce raiders they'd catch most and gun them down. Furthermore, I'd think the US would keep their battlefleet concentrated since they were at such a numerical dissadvantage and would be very careful in utilizing it because it was SLOW. Average speed about 18 kts.

Theoretically the US Navy could possibly dilute the Home Fleet enough for the Hochseeflotte to have a fighting chance in a Jutland type battle but it would require the brits to get a case of the dumbs.

I think the best course of action would be to maintain the homefleet at historical levels with the exception of the BC's. I'd deploy them all combating commerce raiders and raiding US shipping. They'd outrun the US battlefleet and make quick work of anything else they met. This type of commitment pretty much means writing off Canada because I'd think US subs/whatever commerce raiders don't get gobbled up by the BC's would make it pretty hazardous for convoys heading to Canada.

Don't think the Brits could risk sending a sizeable part of the battlefleet to escort a pretty large expedition to Canada. it'd open the door for the HSF.

BC's/Cruisers of the Royal Navy would decimate US Atlantic shipping and might be enough to make what I think would be a half-hearted war commitment by the US fall apart.


That is IF there is a Gallipoli campaign ITTL. It may not be considered worth moving forces from other theaters based on the possibility of knocking out the Ottomans, and Churchill (was he the one who advocated it? If not, whoever came up with it, can't recall off memory at the moment) may not consider it as good an idea. The Ottomans may even be neutral.

The OP said immediately at the start of the war, and at the start it was Germany + Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria, the Ottomans had not jumped in yet.

EDIT: I broke the quote function :|

You end the quote with a /QUOTE in brackets.

IMO, Gallipoli will not happen or any major UK push against the Ottomans. Just too many other demands. With a good chance of ANZAC forces not leaving the region and a guarantee Canadian troop don't go to Europe, you have already used up enough divisions to account for Gallipoli, even before we get into lower supply levels. The UK sends enough troops to hold Suez, Corp or less. It does enough to hold Basra.

And Bulgaria came in after the Ottomans.


Italy is likely to join unless you see butterflies in Galicia by early 1915. Italy thought A-H was about to collapse and the Italian armies would take Vienna. They will not be worried much about a USA in later years, and to be fair, the USA/Italian part of the peace treaty is very easy to negotiate. And if A-H falls in 1915 as expected, USA entry can't save Germany.

The RN will rule the seas and blockade both the US and Germany. With time passing by, both Germany and the US will try to challenge that, probably not to any more success than Germany had IOTL and also much later, but that will bind more and more ressources from Britain. The naval war will cost Britain much more in terms of money, which they did not have enough IOTL.

What about submarine warfare? Would both the US and Germany go for unrestricted submarine warfare early on and throughout the war? By far not a game changer, but it makes the situation for Britain even more difficult.

UK can harm USA merchant trade, but it lacks enough ships and ports to sustain a USA blockade. IOTL, they lacked enough ships to take Tsingtao, so they asked the Japanese to join despite knowing it would cause future issues in China. The RN has the biggest and therefore best navy, but it will not be dominant in all areas. Now with the risk-hound of Churchill in power, I can't rule out even the boldest/riskiest plans, but he can't do them all.

USA/Germany likely follows cruiser rules, and will have big success. While the High Seas Fleet can't reach the USA, it will be easy to move the U-boats to USA ports where they can cause additional issues for UK.


I think that people often forget that the United States was often the largest source of immigrants to Canada, especially in the Prairie provinces. Between 1897 and 1916 1,127,414 Americans settled in Canada, most of these were lured by the promise of free land in the West. Of these 62% arrived after 1909, so they were very recent immigrants.

The vast majority of these immigrants were born in the U.S. and most came from neighbouring states. The largest number crossed over from North Dakota, accounting for 19% of entries, another 15% from Minnesota and 10% from Washington.

It's worth noting that the Prairie Provinces were still offering free homesteads whilst most of the plain states had already been settled. In both 1912 and 1913 for instance Americans accounted for the largest number of Homestead Grants in Canada, they outnumbered homesteaders from Ontario 3 to 1.

For a country of just over 9 million in 1920, this means a large proportion of the people are either American born or have an American parent. These people may be in favour of American annexation, or indifferent at best, simply because from a survey it appears that most simply moved north to reap economic benefits, rather than for political reasons.

In Alberta for instance there were 275,093 Americans registered at the American consulate as living in Alberta in 1919 (nearly 50% of the population). The actual number of Americans was estimated at 325,000 (65% of the population), and Americans accounted for about 70% of the immigration to the province.

In Saskatchewan there were 226,330 Americans registered with the American consulate in 1919 or around 1/3 of the population.

In Manitoba, there were 78,789 Americans registered in 1919, or around 13% of the population.

The Yukon territory and British Columbia also received a great deal of American immigration. I could not find the exact figures of Americans living in each, however in 1908 alone there were nearly 17,000 Americans settling in British Columbia.


The US fleet boasted the third largest number of subs (more than Germany) in mid 1914. The disparity between US and UK was mainly in the number of Cruisers and other small ships.

UK 20 Dreads + 9 BC
Germany 15 dreads + 4 BC
US 10 dreads + 0 BC

Germany would probably be able to save the Ostasiengeschwader by linking it up with the US Pacific(Asiatic) fleet - The US entry would also force Australia and NZ to maintain a larger presence at home thus NOT sending (many) troops to UK - this would probably prevent OTLs Gallipoli disaster.

I would have to double check, but seems like USA subs were not great subs for range. The C-Class had 4 torpedoes and no deck guns. It does not give range on wiki, but based on tonnage it is more a coastal defense boat. D class and F class look the same. Great ship to keep dreads off USA coast line. Enough to interdict in Caribbean and Halifax. But flawed ships. It will be later in war when USA builds better ships that we see the submarines do more. USA probably copies Germans designs.

Some of the Germans ships from China made it to USA ports, so yes, if forced by entry of Japan, the Eastern Squadron will go to a major USA naval base. And this reminds me of a major issue now. Nitrates. While Germany could not cut off nitrates to UK, the USA can make it hard for the UK go get nitrates to Europe from Chile.

Richter von Manthofen

I would have to double check, but seems like USA subs were not great subs for range. The C-Class had 4 torpedoes and no deck guns. It does not give range on wiki, but based on tonnage it is more a coastal defense boat. D class and F class look the same. Great ship to keep dreads off USA coast line. Enough to interdict in Caribbean and Halifax. But flawed ships. It will be later in war when USA builds better ships that we see the submarines do more. USA probably copies Germans designs.

Some of the Germans ships from China made it to USA ports, so yes, if forced by entry of Japan, the Eastern Squadron will go to a major USA naval base. And this reminds me of a major issue now. Nitrates. While Germany could not cut off nitrates to UK, the USA can make it hard for the UK go get nitrates to Europe from Chile.

Even this I think the US boats would do a great job harrassing UK ships to and from Canada, so I think Canada would largely be on its own against teh US (land side of the game)

Concerning nitrates - shutting down CHile should be not that hard for the US - simply buy off all stocks


The USA being able to field a larger army than Canada would mean more if Canada wasn't going to call for help - and Britain can certainly send that help.

The USA in 1914 is still having an underwhelming military.

Because the British having a larger navy than Germany+the USA put together doesn't matter?

Facing the American navy is not "nearly no gain".

And the Royal Navy is large enough to do more than just the North Sea passage and Gibraltar. More than large enough. It's the largest and most powerful fleet in the world by a considerable margin.

It's not a matter of American morale, it's a matter of "WTF are we doing?"

The USA has no interest in fighting Britain without a POD establishing there as being a rivalry.

The USA has much more interest in trade and peace with the Entente powers than with the CP, especially as trading with the CP will be handily intercepted by the Royal Navy you so cavalierly dismiss.

Instead you have yourself arguing for a flawless American victory as if the US navy can steam all over the Seven Seas without a problem but the poor Royal Navy can barely handle its OTL tasks.

Given that you don't even know where the Royal Navy went to secure supplies from, I'm dubious on any calculations of yours based on fuel supply

OK, I see you are arguing an USA first strategy by the UK. And if the UK sent the entire BEF plus the bulk of the Grand Fleet to North America, it will cause issues for the USA. The USA will have some issues in the first year of the war, and it is tougher for the future years. We have had US versus British Empire, one-on-one threads, so I will not repeat the full details. But lets look at what happens if the UK does this. I will even give you the Kaiser squanders the opportunity to do anything useful with his surface fleet. Not too much of a stretch. Without the BEF in France, the Germans likely hold the Marne. The will then bog down due to logistics, so Paris will not fall. The best supply situation was in Belgium. They were bring supplies west, then south. So the Germans will take Calais. Probably full length of Somme in race to sea. By Spring, German naval officers will be looking at installing 380 mm guns at Calais. U-boats and smaller surface ships will be based in channel ports. The port of London will lose a lot of its usefulness.

Now the UK does gain something. You would have to say where and how you think the UK will attack. Number of units, location, strategy. I can't read your mind, so I need something more than blockade all of USA, devastate unnamed cities with unlisted Order of Battle. Take unnamed cities with unlisted Order of Battle.

Now lets roll to 1915. The USA is rapidly growing and has shorter supply lines. This year the land initiative will swing from British Empire to USA. Battle lines will stall out. Canada is doing a lot better than my suggest European first plan. But at a huge costs. Falkenhayn can ignore the western front. He still has to attack east, but this time he has a lot more flexibility. The lines will end hundreds of miles farther east than OTL and he may even knock Russia out of the war. Russia was in bad shape in August 1915 with many units having retreated for over 90 straight days. With more troops and no need to move units west, the Russians may break. And even if this does not happen, come 1916, Russia will be too weak to attack. No Romania in war. No Brusilov. France will fall to the Grand Offensive of 1916. And sure, maybe Canada is still stalemated with USA only hold some parts of Canada and UK has take some USA land.

IMO the UK is even worse off, but they do keep something recognizeable as Canada. At the cost of a hostile Germany holding Calais and parts of the English Channel Coast.

Your position is basically "RN has very large Navy, therefore it can do all the things I claim". You have to get into the details to see the issues. For example, the Pacific fleet was almost non-existent. The Entente had 1 gunboat in South Atlantic at start of war. It lacked enough ship to take Tsingtao without Japanese help which took a few months to come. In other words, it was maxed out IOTL with more jobs to do than capable ships to do them. So every ship you send to fight USA means something else will not be done that was done OTL. And the forces you are calling for would take over the bulk of the RN just to blockade the USA. Where do you plan to base your ships? How many ships? How many division? When you look at the details, it is clear the RN can't do it early in the war. And with the USA rapidly mobilizing, it has a very small window to act. Sure the BEF is hugely powerful compared to the US Army if you land in Long Island in September 1914. But there is a huge downside. And if you want to Spring 1915, the window to do the Long Island operation has passed. USA infantry regiments will be infantry divisions if not head up in size to infantry corps. Things that may have a couple thousand men defending them in August 1914 will have a division or two in Spring 1915, and well over a corp by end of year.

And back to the Gibraltar comment. The RN lacked the ships in OTL to both escort convoys and had enough ships to hunt German merchant raiders in other oceans. It is why pressure was put on Japan to help. The problem becomes when you look at the number of merchant ships and the ratio of escorts to convoy. A lot of the UK ships could not really do convoy escorts, much less long range surface combat. There is a reason the UK used pre-dreads as convoy escorts. Lack of suitable escort ships.


There is also the issue that Jutland showed that German ships were harder to kill, had superior gunnery, especially considering that a large portion of British hits were during the attempted deathride.

So any major deployment of Dreadies or Battlecruisers would be very encouraging to the HSF for sailing forth and gambling there chances. And even if the HSF only manages to a 1.1.5 ratio of sinkings, that still gives America a massive boost in regards to outbuilding the Royal Navy.

Similarly, it doesnt matter that the Royal Navy could enforce the blockade for the whole war, Germany lasted until 1918 with that anyways. The point is is that the USN can do the same from an Ocean away. The Royal Navy has to spend precious oil to sail over there, if they do so, and by the time they are over here, the USN can be somewhere else. Of course the Royal Navy can and has to give battlw with the USN, but the USN is not under the same constraints.

Canada is lost. The US will be expanding its army as fast as possible, it will have a million men under arms by tthe end of 1915, and it will only keep expanding. Meanwhile, other than the BEF, ANZAC is going to have a fun time getting to America. Very fun time indeed. Because they have to either go around South America or go around India, through the Suez, through Gibraltar, and then finally to Canada.

Meanwhile, where does the Royal Navy and the Merchant Marine get its oil? Thats problem number one. Before Uboat warfare even begins, a hefty chunk of the British Merhcant Marine will be starving for fuel within months.

Brittania can rule the waves all it likes. It can also be blockaded from afar. From across the ocean in fact. Oh and the food situation doesnt just concern Britain, it will be a worry for France too.

So the USN begins a massive expansion, but it wont just be Dreadies, it will Destroyers, Cruisers and Uboats out the ass. And those can be built en masse much easier than Dreadies.

I didnt actually think about it until someone here pointed that out. That the USN had subs. What this means is that Submarines are going to be built by the hundreds and will be having a wonderful time.

Of course, there is also the almost irrelevant wildcard of Merchant Subs. Only two were ever built and they were done by Germany. But I think the concept may be more appealing as a smuggling tool. And there dead simple to make, just a hollow interior for the most. The main challenge would be building to size.

The Paris Peace Conference and the Treaty of Versailles

The Paris Peace Conference convened in January 1919 at Versailles just outside Paris . The conference was called to establish the terms of the peace after World War I. Though nearly thirty nations participated, the representatives of the United Kingdom, France, the United States, and Italy became known as the “Big Four.” The “Big Four” dominated the proceedings that led to the formulation of the Treaty of Versailles, a treaty that ended World War I.

The Treaty of Versailles articulated the compromises reached at the conference. It included the planned formation of the League of Nations, which would serve both as an international forum and an international collective security arrangement. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson was a strong advocate of the League as he believed it would prevent future wars.

Negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference were complicated. The United Kingdom, France, and Italy fought together as the Allied Powers during the First World War. The United States, entered the war in April 1917 as an Associated Power. While it fought alongside the Allies, the United States was not bound to honor pre-existing agreements among the Allied Powers. These agreements focused on postwar redistribution of territories. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson strongly opposed many of these arrangements, including Italian demands on the Adriatic. This often led to significant disagreements among the “Big Four.”

Treaty negotiations were also weakened by the absence of other important nations. Russia had fought as one of the Allies until December 1917, when its new Bolshevik Government withdrew from the war. The Bolshevik decision to repudiate Russia’s outstanding financial debts to the Allies and to publish the texts of secret agreements between the Allies concerning the postwar period angered the Allies. The Allied Powers refused to recognize the new Bolshevik Government and thus did not invite its representatives to the Peace Conference. The Allies also excluded the defeated Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Bulgaria).

Making the defeated party pay a war indemnity is a common practice with a long history.

In Ancient history, the imposition of reparations on a defeated enemy was often the beginning of forcing that enemy to pay a regular tribute. [ citation needed ]

Some war reparations induced changes in monetary policy. For example, the French payment following the Franco-Prussian war played a major role in Germany's decision to adopt the gold standard [ citation needed ] the 230 million silver taels in reparations imposed on defeated China after the First Sino-Japanese War led Japan to a similar decision. [2]

There have been attempts to codify reparations both in the Statutes of the International Criminal Court and the UN Basic Principles on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims, and some scholars have argued that individuals should have a right to seek compensation for wrongs they sustained during warfare through tort law. [3] [4]

Europe Edit

Napoleonic War Edit

Following the Treaty of Paris (1815), defeated France was ordered to pay 700 million francs in indemnities. France was also to pay additional money to cover the cost of providing additional defensive fortifications to be built by neighbouring Coalition countries. In proportion to its GDP, it's the most expensive war reparation ever paid by a country. [5]

Franco-Prussian War Edit

After the Franco-Prussian War, according to conditions of Treaty of Frankfurt (May 10, 1871), France was obliged to pay a war indemnity of 5 billion gold francs in 5 years. The indemnity was proportioned, according to population, to be the exact equivalent to the indemnity imposed by Napoleon on Prussia in 1807. [6] German troops remained in parts of France until the last installment of the indemnity was paid in September 1873, ahead of schedule. [7]

Greco-Turkish War of 1897 Edit

Following the Greco-Turkish War (1897), defeated Greece was forced to pay a large war indemnity to Turkey (£4 million). Greece, which was already in default, [ clarification needed ] was compelled to permit oversight of its public finances by an international financial commission. [8]

World War I Edit

Russians agreed to pay reparations to the Central Powers when Russia exited the war in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (which was repudiated by the Bolshevik government eight months later). Bulgaria paid reparations of 2.25 billion gold francs (90 million pounds) to the Entente, according to the Treaty of Neuilly.

Germany agreed to pay reparations of 132 billion gold marks to the Triple Entente in the Treaty of Versailles, which were then cancelled in 1932 with Germany only having paid a part of the sum. This still left Germany with debts it had incurred in order to finance the reparations, and these were revised by the Agreement on German External Debts in 1953. After another pause pending the reunification of Germany, the last installment of these debt repayments was paid on 3 October 2010. [9]

World War II Germany Edit

During World War II, Nazi Germany extracted payments from occupied countries and compelled loans. In addition, countries were obliged to provide resources, and forced labour.

After World War II, according to the Potsdam conference held between July 17 and August 2, 1945, Germany was to pay the Allies US$23 billion mainly in machinery and manufacturing plants. Reparations to the Soviet Union stopped in 1953. Large numbers of factories were dismantled or destroyed. [ citation needed ] Dismantling in the west stopped in 1950.

Beginning before the German surrender and continuing for the next two years, the United States pursued a vigorous program of harvesting all technological and scientific know-how as well as all patents and many leading scientists in Germany (known as Operation Paperclip). Historian John Gimbel, in his book Science Technology and Reparations: Exploitation and Plunder in Postwar Germany, states that the "intellectual reparations" (referring to German scientists) taken by the Allies amounted to close to $10 billion. [10] German reparations were partly to be in the form of forced labor. By 1947, approximately 4,000,000 German POWs and civilians were used as forced labor (under various headings, such as "reparations labor" or "enforced labor") in Europe, Canada and the United States after the end of the Second World War. [11]

World War II Italy Edit

According to the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, Italy agreed to pay reparations of about US$125 million to Yugoslavia, US$105 million to Greece, US$100 million to the Soviet Union, US$25 million to Ethiopia, and US$5 million to Albania.

Other World War II reparations Edit

Finland could only negotiate an interim peace deal with Soviet Union by agreeing to extensive reparations, and was eventually the only country to pay settled war reparations in full. The total amount of reparations rose to 500 million US dollars, at the value of the dollar in 1953. [12] Hungary agreed to pay reparations of US$200 million to the Soviet Union, and US$100 million apiece to Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. Romania agreed to pay reparations of US$300 million to the Soviet Union. Romanian economists estimated that by February 1947 the Romanian economy had suffered further losses due to returning seized goods (US$320 million), restoring properties to the United Nations and their nationals (US$200 million), renouncing German debts (US$200 million), irregular requisitioning (US$150 million) and maintenance of the Soviet Army unit on its territory (US$75 million). [13] Romania paid $5.6 million in 1945 [14] and, in the assessment of Digi24, it was coerced to pay through SovRom $2 billion. [15] Bulgaria agreed to pay reparations of $50 million to Greece and $25 million to Yugoslavia. According to the articles of these treaties, the value of US$ was prescribed as 35 US dollars to one troy ounce of pure gold.

Japan Edit

Sino-Japanese War of 1895 Edit

The Treaty of Shimonoseki, signed on April 17, 1895, obliged China to pay an indemnity of 200 million silver taels (¥3.61 billion) to Japan and to open the ports of Shashi, Chongqing, Suzhou and Hangzhou to Japanese trade.

World War II Japan Edit

According to Article 14 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan (1951): "Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war. Japan will promptly enter into negotiations with Allied Powers". War reparations made pursuant to the San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan (1951) include: reparations amounting to US$550 million (198 billion yen 1956) were made to the Philippines, and US$39 million (14.04 billion yen 1959) to South Vietnam payment to the International Committee of the Red Cross to compensate prisoners of war (POW) of 4.5 million pounds sterling (4.54109 billion yen) was made and Japan relinquished all overseas assets, approximately US$23.681 billion (379.499 billion yen).

The United States signed the peace treaty with 49 nations in 1952 and concluded 54 bilateral agreements that included those with Burma (US$20 million 1954, 1963), South Korea (US$300 million 1965), Indonesia (US$223.08 million 1958), the Philippines (US$525 million/52.94 billion yen 1967), Malaysia (25 million Malaysian dollars/2.94 billion yen 1967), Thailand (5.4 billion yen 1955), Micronesia (1969), Laos (1958), Cambodia (1959), Mongolia (1977), Spain ($5.5 million 1957), Switzerland, the Netherlands ($10 million 1956), Sweden and Denmark. Payments of reparations started in 1955, lasted for 23 years and ended in 1977. For countries that renounced any reparations from Japan, it agreed to pay an indemnity and/or grants in accordance with bilateral agreements. In the Joint Communiqué of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China (1972), the People's Republic of China renounced its demand for war reparations from Japan. In the Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956, the Soviet Union waived its rights to reparations from Japan, and both Japan and the Soviet Union waived all reparations claims arising from war. Additionally, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), under President J. R. Jayewardene, declined war reparations from Japan. [16]

Gulf War reparations Edit

After the Gulf War, Iraq accepted United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which declared Iraq's financial liability for damage caused in its invasion of Kuwait. [17] The United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) was established, and US$350 billion in claims were filed by governments, corporations, and individuals. UNCC accepted and awarded compensions claims for $52.4 billion to approximately 1.5 million successful claimants as of July 2019, $48.7 billion has been paid and only $3.7 billion was left to be paid to Kuwait on behalf of the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation. [18] The UNCC says that its prioritization of claims by natural people, ahead of claims by governments and entities or corporations (legal persons), "marked a significant step in the evolution of international claims practice". Funds for these payments were to come from a 30% share of Iraq's oil revenues from the oil for food program.

US History Topic 5 Practice Quiz

No close student of recent history will deny that both Great Britain and Germany have, on numerous occasions since the beginning of the war, flagrantly violated in the most serious manner the rights of neutral vessels and neutral nations under existing international law as recognized up to the beginning of this war by the civilized world.

The reason given by the President in asking Congress to declare war against Germany is that the German Government has declared certain war zones, within which, by the use of submarines, she sinks, without notice, American ships and destroys American lives.

The first war zone was declared by Great Britain. She gave us and the world notice of it on the 4th day of November, 1914.

Both of these orders declaring military zones were illegal and contrary to international law. It is sufficient to say that our Government has officially declared both of them to be illegal and has officially protested against both of them. " —Senator George William Norris, Congressional Record, April 4, 1917

What Were the Five Peace Treaties of World War I?

Following the end of World War I, the Allied Powers signed five different peace treaties with the various members of the Central Powers: the Treaty of Saint-Germain-in-Laye, the Treaty of Trianon, the Treaty of Sèvres, the Treaty of Lausanne and the Treaty of Versailles. These treaties stripped the defeated nations of large amounts of territory and resulted in the creation of a number of new, independent nations.

The Treaty of Saint-Germain-in-Laye was signed on Sept. 10, 1916 and created the Republic of Austria, while also taking lands from the former Austrian Empire to create the new nations of Czechoslovakia, Poland and what would eventually become Yugoslavia. Hungary, the other half of the defeated Austro-Hungarian Empire, signed the Treaty of Trianon a little over a year later, ceding lands to Romania, Czechoslovakia, and the Kingdom of Croats, Slovenes and Serbs.

Both the Treaty of Sèvres and the Treaty of Lausanne were signed by the Turkish, with the Ottoman Empire originally signing the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920. However, this led to the Turkish War of Independence that eventually resulted in the creation of the Republic of Turkey, who then signed the Treaty of Lausanne three years later.

The most important and strictest of the five treaties was the Treaty of Versailles, which Germany signed on May 7, 1919. This treaty forced Germany to give up lands to many of their neighboring countries, while also requiring that the nation accept full responsibility for starting World War I.

Watch the video: Food Security for Peace in the Central African Republic (August 2022).