A Blunted Sickle - Thread II

They’re already getting plenty out of the war, they have full control over Germany and will no doubt dismantle its military capabilities and strip down its surviving industrial infrastructure to replace what was destroyed in their own countries. Annexing the left bank of the Rhine doesn’t magically make Germany any less of a threat in the long term.

Also, it’s worth noting that the French, Belgian, and Dutch governments ITTL managed to hold off Germany rather than being pushed off the continent (even if it was only a toehold in Belgium’s case). This means that those nations have suffered less and there isn’t as much agitation by figures like De Gaulle for “reclaiming national honor.”

Case in point. "What the Germans did" doesn't amount to as much ITTL since the Dutch were able to retreat behind the Water Line, so this doesn't necessarily apply here.
yes but by what they did he was largely referring to the bombing of Dutch cities in 1940 by the Luftwaffe this still happened and arguably with the Dutch still resisting would have been more significant not less.
 
Westphalia is even further back than Vienna was, so again, how are these old treaties relevant to the 20th century? Also, this dreaded US influence that stopped France and the Low Countries from putting these schemes into motion was also what allowed their economies to bounce back so quickly after the war. Consider that annexing these regions from Germany means that they'd be on the hook for rebuilding damaged infrastructure when they've already got their hands full repairing their own. And that's without taking into account the population transfers needed to make these regions productive again.
i'm not saying the US influence was dreaded it was a welcome break but it also shows a clear distinction in thinking about how to solve these issues but without that positive force things would have been different and a major part of the US positive influence was that none of there cities got bombed thus they were able to think more objectively and in a more detached way removing that break makes a very different world. You can also see the more traditional way of writing treaties for European powers was still in existence within living memory by looking at the one major early 20th-century peace treaty that had no American influence Brest-Litovsk where Germany annexed a slice of Russia so big it took 34% of its population. Brest-Litovsk was infinitely more harsh than Versaille or Saint Germaine
 
Last edited:
yes but by what they did he was largely referring to the bombing of Dutch cities in 1940 by the Luftwaffe this still happened and arguably with the Dutch still resisting would have been more significant not less.
i'm not saying the US influence was dreaded it was a welcome break but it also shows a clear distinction in thinking about how to solve these issues but without that positive force things would have been different and a major part of the US positive influence was that none of there cities got bombed thus they were able to think more objectively and in a more detached way removing that break makes a very different world.
Annexing a German city because they bombed one of yours doesn't reduce any of the damages you incurred, it just means you have two bombed-out cities instead of one. While the toll from the war is still high and animosity towards Germany is significant, looking at the cost of repairing existing damages tends to have a sobering effect on policymakers. Without the swell of postwar American investment that occurred OTL, they'll have to decide what stays on the budget, and vast population transfers aren't likely to make the cut. When the tide of public goodwill towards the Entente governments for winning the war starts to recede and people start wondering why they're still at a lower standard of living than they were before the war, it's more effective to be able to point to current reconstruction projects than it is to point to all the new territory they have on the map.
 
Annexing a German city because they bombed one of yours doesn't reduce any of the damages you incurred, it just means you have two bombed-out cities instead of one. While the toll from the war is still high and animosity towards Germany is significant, looking at the cost of repairing existing damages tends to have a sobering effect on policymakers. Without the swell of postwar American investment that occurred OTL, they'll have to decide what stays on the budget, and vast population transfers aren't likely to make the cut. When the tide of public goodwill towards the Entente governments for winning the war starts to recede and people start wondering why they're still at a lower standard of living than they were before the war, it's more effective to be able to point to current reconstruction projects than it is to point to all the new territory they have on the map.
in a rational world that would work but history has proven that not to be the case time and time again that type of mentality simply didn't exist at the time and arguably doesn't today look at the Treat of Brest-Litovsk. Look at the French and Spanish campaigns in the Fez during the 1920s. Or the massive economic drain South Ossetia, Crimea and Chechnya are for the Russians but having the land is considered worth it, and all of them were annexed in the last 25 years.
 
Last edited:
whilst to a modern mindset that would make sense, we have to think more as they would. In an emotionally charged and somewhat irrational way and following the long traditions of European treaties ranging back to the Treaty of Westphalia we also have to look at the vengeful ideas such as the Dutch demands that did happen and think about what would have happened without the imminent soviet threat and US influence dampening those fires. Yes, it would have almost certainly resulted in another war 30-40 years later but in this world, at the moment the idea of nuclear annihilation and the fear of war created by the Cold war doesn't exist too anywhere near the same extent. On top of that this war is much smaller and less destructive than WW1 and more in line with earlier conflicts thus the lessons of how terrible modern war are much less pronounced and people may jump to the wrong conclusions leading to the idea not too dissimilar to nowadays about having wars of choice and how technology such as smart bombs will make wars quicker and cleaner in the future so it is not going to be considered anywhere near as scary a proposition that may backfire horrifically into a much larger conflict in the 1970s-80s.

With respect the war TTL hasn't gone the same way it did OTL so we shouldn't be really relying on the feelings from OTL. Take the Netherlands, while a notable chunk of the country was occupied they haven't experienced anything close to the 'damages' of OTL. So I doubt the Dutch will be planning anything akin to the OTL plan that you mentioned. Expanding on this further the UK didn't have to retreat from mainland Europe and France did manage to push the Germans off French soil faster than they did in WWI. Plus Poland and Czechoslovakia are in the process of currently liberating themselves and the German occupation forces have opportunistically surrendering in Norway and Denmark.

While they don't have OTL to compare to, without those OTL experiences would they be really making the same demands?
 
With respect the war TTL hasn't gone the same way it did OTL so we shouldn't be really relying on the feelings from OTL. Take the Netherlands, while a notable chunk of the country was occupied they haven't experienced anything close to the 'damages' of OTL. So I doubt the Dutch will be planning anything akin to the OTL plan that you mentioned. Expanding on this further the UK didn't have to retreat from mainland Europe and France did manage to push the Germans off French soil faster than they did in WWI. Plus Poland and Czechoslovakia are in the process of currently liberating themselves and the German occupation forces have opportunistically surrendering in Norway and Denmark.

While they don't have OTL to compare to, without those OTL experiences would they be really making the same demands?
These OTL demands are in line with over two thousand years of rivalry between these nations and a continuous pattern of warfare every couple of generations. As for the idea that the Netherlands would be less damaged that is simply ridiculous. By not falling so quickly and staying in the fight they are in the front line subject to Bombing for longer and the level of casualties is higher thus the anger and hatred only grows. The German bombing of Rotterdam which was the main beef still happens but in this timeline but this time it's not an isolated incident. The Idea that the Western Allies would not be out for blood is political naivety of the highest order and shows a complete lack of understanding of the social-political structure of the time. 3 times within living memory Germany would have plunged Europe into war and without the larger threat of the cold war and the restraining influence of the USA. Germany would have been partitioned which was the European way of doing things as for the idea that a state would restrain itself at the peace conference for fear of upsetting the defeated party that is a very modern concept that runs counter to almost all of European history. As Machiavelli wrote if you wound someone lightly they want revenge if you wound them grievously they don't. These demands are commonplace and were the accepted way of doing things. At the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918, the Germans stripped the Russians of 34% of their populated area, 54% of its industrial land 89% of its coal fields, 26% of its railway and partitioned the Russian Empire into 14 separate states however most of this never took place due to the treaty being annulled by the German defeat before they could be enacted. Russia was far from the first empire to be partitioned this way in Europe. The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was partitioned 3 times. The Spanish Empire in Europe was partitioned as was the Holy Roman Empire and two French Empires in the 19th Century to name but a few.
 
Last edited:
in a rational world that would work but history has proven that not to be the case time and time again that type of mentality simply didn't exist at the time and arguably doesn't today look at the Treat of Brest-Litovsk. Look at the French and Spanish campaigns in the Fez during the 1920s. Or the massive economic drain South Ossetia, Crimea and Chechnya are for the Russians but having the land is considered worth it, and all of them were annexed in the last 25 years.
Rational foreign policy decision-making didn't exist in the 20th century? I don't know what you mean by this.
These OTL demands are in line with over two thousand years of rivalry between these nations and a continuous pattern of warfare every couple of generations. As for the idea that the Netherlands would be less damaged that is simply ridiculous. By not falling so quickly and staying in the fight they are in the front line subject to Bombing for longer and the level of casualties is higher thus the anger and hatred only grows. The German bombing of Rotterdam which was the main beef still happens but in this timeline but this time it's not an isolated incident. The Idea that the Western Allies would not be out for blood is political naivety of the highest order and shows a complete lack of understanding of the social-political structure of the time. 3 times within living memory Germany would have plunged Europe into war and without the larger threat of the cold war and the restraining influence of the USA. Germany would have been partitioned which was the European way of doing things as for the idea that a state would restrain itself at the peace conference for fear of upsetting the defeated party that is a very modern concept that runs counter to almost all of European history. As Machiavelli wrote if you wound someone lightly they want revenge if you wound them grievously they don't. These demands are commonplace and were the accepted way of doing things. At the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918, the Germans stripped the Russians of 34% of their populated area, 54% of its industrial land 89% of its coal fields, 26% of its railway and partitioned the Russian Empire into 14 separate states however most of this never took place due to the treaty being annulled by the German defeat before they could be enacted.
As I've repeatedly pointed out, the Entente is already "wounding Germany grievously" by stripping them of all military capabilities and completely restructuring their political system. I don't see why that's so insignificant when it's a complete teardown of the institutions of the German state all the way back to the origins of Prussian militarism. They've already seen what happens when they let treaty requirements lapse, so this state of affairs is likely to continue for quite a long time. Once Germany's economy is strong enough for them to stand on their own, they'll be tied into the Franco-British markets and have no reason whatsoever to fight them, even if the situation is still burdened by the pretense that all nations involved are entirely independent and just so happen to share a common market, equivalent currencies, etc.

There is no unified "European way of doing things," and if the Entente takes their cues from Brest-Litovsk they'd also consider how short-lived it was. Even the German Empire didn't try to annex all the lands it took in the peace deal; they organized puppet states which would be economically and militarily bound to Germany. If the victorious nations all decide to tear off as much as they can from the German carcass, they'll just end up fighting each other for the pieces and then have to deal with whatever emerges from the parts they couldn't control. Frankly, that doesn't seem like the direction this story is going in at all.
 
Rational foreign policy decision-making didn't exist in the 20th century? I don't know what you mean by this.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, the Entente is already "wounding Germany grievously" by stripping them of all military capabilities and completely restructuring their political system. I don't see why that's so insignificant when it's a complete teardown of the institutions of the German state all the way back to the origins of Prussian militarism. They've already seen what happens when they let treaty requirements lapse, so this state of affairs is likely to continue for quite a long time. Once Germany's economy is strong enough for them to stand on their own, they'll be tied into the Franco-British markets and have no reason whatsoever to fight them, even if the situation is still burdened by the pretense that all nations involved are entirely independent and just so happen to share a common market, equivalent currencies, etc.

There is no unified "European way of doing things," and if the Entente takes their cues from Brest-Litovsk they'd also consider how short-lived it was. Even the German Empire didn't try to annex all the lands it took in the peace deal; they organized puppet states which would be economically and militarily bound to Germany. If the victorious nations all decide to tear off as much as they can from the German carcass, they'll just end up fighting each other for the pieces and then have to deal with whatever emerges from the parts they couldn't control. Frankly, that doesn't seem like the direction this story is going in at all.
I never said Germany would be annexed I said it would be massively reduced then partitioned multiple smaller client states is better for UK and France than one Germany linked to UK_French markets
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
The Author of the Dutch plan was on record as saying that even if the entire Rhur Valley was given to the Dutch wouldn't be enough to compensate them for what the Germans did. One of the key supporters of the Dutch plan was Queen Wilhelmina

yes but by what they did he was largely referring to the bombing of Dutch cities in 1940 by the Luftwaffe this still happened and arguably with the Dutch still resisting would have been more significant not less.
I would have to reread the first year of this TL to be sure but besides the destruction of Utrecht during the first push there was never a concerted bombing campaign against the Netherlands though, the Waterline being the frontline, I can imagine some local artillery duels. The Netherlands was just to much of a secondary (or tertiary) theater for such resources to be expanded.

Of course the Netherlands suffered but compared to OTL? Military losses are probably up but no carting off of the Jews, far less executions of resistance members, no looting of the West or blowing up of dykes. Meanwhile public confidence is way up. The Waterline system has saved the day and the Royal Dutch Army withstood the German juggernaut. The flag still flies supreme in the colonies in the East as in the West.

Besides that, isn't destruction in Germany far less as OTL without the massive bombing campaigns of the Allies? The territorial claims of the Bakker-Schut plan were supposed be compensation in lieu of monetary payments. ATL isn't Germany more capable of paying that compensation?

Don't forget, the Durch-German border hadn't changed in some 400 years. There aren't any old territorial claims that the Netherlands needs satisfied. Some border corrections - including at sea - might be in order, but sweeping annexations? I just don't see it.
 
These OTL demands are in line with over two thousand years of rivalry between these nations and a continuous pattern of warfare every couple of generations.

That is more than a little overreach.

1. The Carolingian Empire would beg to differ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_Empire the areas of France and Germany were part of the same state and many of the nobles had important connections with each other that lasted for centuries.

2. Noble as high as the Electors of the Holy Roman Empire sided against the reigning Emperor/Empress with the French so the presentation of total war between two states is contentious.

3. Especially when considering some French Kings fought to become the HR Emperor and the Franco-Hapsburg alliance in the 7 years war, what Austria's actual position was in the Conference of Vienna prior to the Hundred Days and Napoleon III's foreign policy in regards to Austria.

As for the idea that the Netherlands would be less damaged that is simply ridiculous.

Do you not consider the Dutch Famine to be at the very least damaging?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_famine_of_1944–1945

It isn't happening TTL and I would argue a large amount of the vendetta would in fact be gone considering its proximity to when peace was actually achieve that it was far more impactful than the bombing of Rotterdam.

Plus the Netherlands was a secondary theatre ITTL.

By not falling so quickly and staying in the fight they are in the front line subject to Bombing for longer and the level of casualties is higher thus the anger and hatred only grows. The German bombing of Rotterdam which was the main beef still happens but in this timeline but this time it's not an isolated incident.

More than the Dutch famine? And as I mentioned above France was the primary theatre. The Netherlands would be a secondary one since the main was just a larger swing through Belgium which was achieved without crossing the water line.

The Idea that the Western Allies would not be out for blood is political naivety of the highest order and shows a complete lack of understanding of the social-political structure of the time.

There's a difference between saying no desire for vengeance and what I actually said.

With respect the war TTL hasn't gone the same way it did OTL so we shouldn't be really relying on the feelings from OTL.

snip

While they don't have OTL to compare to, without those OTL experiences would they be really making the same demands?

Having a permanent occupation and being entirely dependent on foreign powers for defence isn't a light weight peace. Especially when adding in how long it would take for Germans to be in positions of authority and the potential for reparations ITTL.

3 times within living memory Germany would have plunged Europe into war and without the larger threat of the cold war and the restraining influence of the USA. Germany would have been partitioned which was the European way of doing things as for the idea that a state would restrain itself at the peace conference for fear of upsetting the defeated party that is a very modern concept that runs counter to almost all of European history.

With respect the consequences of the Congress of Vienna were/are rather different to what you've been implying in your debate. For instance France kept its pre-revolutionary borders and actually received territory back during the Congress and if not for the 100 days one of the Kings that Napoleon had stained would have remained in power. So frankly using the Congress as an example of a harsh imposed peace comparable to splitting up Germany frankly does not work when considering its provisions.

Fundamentally I think you're not so much interested in the actual details of history as much as trying to wild it like a hammer and in the case of how you're using the Congress it doesn't really work.

Not to mention there are my earlier points about Versailles and how that would be viewed TTL.


As Machiavelli wrote if you wound someone lightly they want revenge if you wound them grievously they don't. These demands are commonplace and were the accepted way of doing things.

With respect that was for dealing with internal dissent where Machiavelli also argued powerful people were more likely to forgive you for killing family members than taking away their property. It was written for the renaissance period when wars were between dynasties not nation state as seen with the Italian Wars. Such terms were never applied in those wars or the wars fought against the Ottoman Empire and even the Peace of Westphalia that you mention doesn't really have such terms as you're suggesting. The punishments there were not on the Holy Roman Empire as a state but on the power of the Emperor and their ability for force religious conformity.

At the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918, the Germans stripped the Russians of 34% of their populated area and partitioned the Russian Empire into 14 separate states however most of this never took place due to the treaty being annulled by the German defeat before they could be enacted.

But Russia was explicitly left as a surviving entity with most of its territory as opposed to your idea of competently destroying Germany as a nation state.
 
Last edited:
Re: the Ruhr.

So you want to control the region, its coal and steel but don't want to fully annex or occupy?
You nationalise that heavy industry, make it into a consortium where the Entente control the vast majority if shares.
It has limited impact on the day to day activities, you get money in compensation, and you can make sure it's not used in ways you don't like.

Shares can even go to the private sector like Schneider to avoid putting them in unfair competition.
 
True it isn’t OTL with 60 million+ dead but iirc @pdf27 has stated that France will have suffered over 1 million+ casualties and Paris will have been quite badly damaged when it was taken and sieged in 1940 ITTL. Britain will have, at least, many 100,000s of casualties, probably approaching a million.

They aren’t the completely exhausted nations of OTL 1945, they are bloodied and battered but it was their armies, navies and air forces which have brought Germany to its knees, not the USA and the USSR. I just can’t see them ITTL treating Germany lightly even if that is the best option for long term peace.

I don’t think they’ll partition Germany but the Saar is probably gone, large parts of the east will become Polish and I’m imagining some kind of internationalisation of the Ruhr but there wont be any backing out (from Britain) like there was in the early 1920s.

The only part of Germany that I think could go is Bavaria. I know that there was a pro-wittlesbach and independence movement after WW2 but honestly I don’t know how popular it was. It doesn’t cripple Germany on its own but it’s a decent sized chunk removed from a unified German state.

Edit:
According to this Bavaria is 11.7% of the German population. If you wanted to weaken Germany but not cripple it you could support a Wittlesbach restoration and independence. Like I said I have no idea if that is realistic but I bet it would appeal to France, you could even hark on about France and Bavaria being Allies in the past.
 

Attachments

  • AC3EF995-0A8C-4163-B76B-ACABEAF818B6.jpeg
    AC3EF995-0A8C-4163-B76B-ACABEAF818B6.jpeg
    397.7 KB · Views: 31
Last edited:
OK, looks like I need to do some actual writing on an update before you guys get to the next stage and start talking about Surströmming.

My view (which is feeding into the writing, obviously) is that there are several major factors driving the Entente plans for after the war:
  1. Germany completely subverted Versailles, and tried the same thing again 20 years later. Whatever post-war settlement is adopted will be designed to be hard for the Germans to subvert and they won't be trusted to implement it.
  2. A major factor in the Germans being able to subvert Versailles - and launch the war that followed - was the British and French having different views on how to implement it. The French occupation of the Rhineland is a classic example of this, so any settlement will seek to avoid such flashpoints.
  3. Associated with this, I suspect a poor Germany is going to be seen as a problem - if you're planning on a long occupation (driven by #1 and #2), you need to make sure Germany is in a position to fund it and ideally ensure that the occupation isn't burdensome on you.
    Some sort of "occupation tax", to be paid in Germany currency as a percentage of GDP to the occupying powers - if they stop occupying, the money stops. Likely to be based off pre-war German military spending as a fraction of the economy.
  4. "Prussian Militarism" rather than Nazis or Reds under the Bed is likely to be the major bogeyman - ITTL I think Hitler is likely to be seen as more of a figurehead for the General Staff and less as the root cause of everything. Add in with no Japan or US joining in, this will be seen as much more of a replay of the Western Front, which will serve to emphasise certain WW1 attitudes/prejudices.
  5. "Population Transfer" won't cause anybody to blink after what the Germans have just got up to. If you're on the Deutsche Volksliste then unless you were also working actively for the resistance you're about to find yourself and all your family involuntarily moving house.
  6. They don't want the Poles starting a war with the Soviets, so they're going to get territorial compensation for their losses from Germany. At the same time, the German problem is heavily identified with Prussia (see #4) - so completely disposing of East Prussia by giving it to Poland without the population and eliminating the Junkers as a class by turning their tenants into factory workers spread across Germany is very attractive indeed. Handing over other bits of Germany, much less so.
  7. The League of Nations is a dead letter, but some form of collaboration between the Entente powers is pretty much a given. I'm envisioning it as something of a cross between NATO, BENELUX and the European Coal & Steel Community, growing out of the wartime military and economic arrangements between the Entente powers which I suspect will prove hard to untangle.
 
True it isn’t OTL with 60 million+ dead but iirc @pdf27 has stated that France will have suffered over 1 million+ casualties and Paris will have been quite badly damaged when it was taken and sieged in 1940 ITTL. Britain will have, at least, many 100,000s of casualties, probably approaching a million.

They aren’t the completely exhausted nations of OTL 1945, they are bloodied and battered but it was their armies, navies and air forces which have brought Germany to its knees, not the USA and the USSR. I just can’t see them ITTL treating Germany lightly even if that is the best option for long term peace.
Let me note that post-WW2 Germany was occupied for half a century, divided for as long and had about a quarter of its territory annexed permanently and depopulated. In comparison Versailles was a slap in the wrist. So arguably the lesson to be had from OTL is not that Germany was treated lightly in 1945, unlike 1918 and that's why it turned peaceful but rather the reverse, that it had not been treated harshly enough in 1918 to get the lesson to heart.
 
Let me note that post-WW2 Germany was occupied for half a century, divided for as long and had about a quarter of its territory annexed permanently and depopulated. In comparison Versailles was a slap in the wrist. So arguably the lesson to be had from OTL is not that Germany was treated lightly in 1945, unlike 1918 and that's why it turned peaceful but rather the reverse, that it had not been treated harshly enough in 1918 to get the lesson to heart.
True but I still think the perception will be very different when it is Britain and France imposing their will rather than the “United Nations” after a 6 year war which involved the majority of the globe and killed 60+ million.

You could have basically the same terms as OTL; loss of eastern territories to Poland, loss of the Saar (permanent or not) and a long occupation but I think Britain and France are going to be more conscious about keeping Germany down than the OTL powers.
 
  1. Associated with this, I suspect a poor Germany is going to be seen as a problem - if you're planning on a long occupation (driven by #1 and #2), you need to make sure Germany is in a position to fund it and ideally ensure that the occupation isn't burdensome on you.
In case I haven't said this before, thanks for the great timeline and please don't feel pressured to add to it (although I think we would all be grateful).

A few comments on this (please feel free to ignore, and sorry if none of this is news to you)
1. I believe occupation costs were imposed in the aftermath of WW1 (could be wrong though) but that they were pretty minimal as the forces were mostly token (until the occupation of the Ruhr). They were eventually rolled into the whole ball of confusion about reparations and how much Germany had paid and should pay.
2. During the cold war Germany made payments to the UK and the US to offset the foreign exchange costs of the Anglo-US occupation/defence against the USSR. These were always highly contentious though as they needed German agreement.
3. One of the issues that massively divided the UK and France was reparations and the UK is unlikely to agree to reparations of any great duration
4. There was a Franco-German proposal after WW1 for the Germans to do the reconstruction of NE France (coal mines etc) as a form of reparation in kind. This would have avoided the transfer problem (how to change large quantities of marks raised through taxes into gold without Germany running a large export surplus to earn the gold). It was partly scuppered through British opposition (how would the UK get a share of these reparations?) This might get looked at again in this situation, especially if the UK doesn't have such large debts to the US to repay.
 
In any post war settlements the Allies will first want to put hammer to head on Germany but more realistic heads will prevail and see a unified economically strong Germany is in their best interests but disarmed enough not to be a threat later on but still able to defend itself.
Whatever happens to Germany the same terms will apply to Austria as the won’t be seen ITTL as “Hittler’s First Victim” but as willing accomplices to the war.
After the German State Archive is secured the documents of the various agreements that Germany and Soviet Union had with each other will be published and the Soviet Union will be seen as enablers to Germany because without Soviet grain, raw materials, oil, and trucks, Germany could have never gone to war in the first place.
Also the extent of Soviet control over the various Communist Parties in other nations will be exposed and that will allow countries to suppress the Communist Party in their countries, plus with a look back at how much the KPD cooperated with the Nazis in the Reichstag before Hitler took power the KPD may be banned and any members that are in the Soviet Union at this time may not be allowed to return to Germany.
 
OK, looks like I need to do some actual writing on an update before you guys get to the next stage and start talking about Surströmming.

My view (which is feeding into the writing, obviously) is that there are several major factors driving the Entente plans for after the war:
  1. Germany completely subverted Versailles, and tried the same thing again 20 years later. Whatever post-war settlement is adopted will be designed to be hard for the Germans to subvert and they won't be trusted to implement it.
  2. A major factor in the Germans being able to subvert Versailles - and launch the war that followed - was the British and French having different views on how to implement it. The French occupation of the Rhineland is a classic example of this, so any settlement will seek to avoid such flashpoints.
  3. Associated with this, I suspect a poor Germany is going to be seen as a problem - if you're planning on a long occupation (driven by #1 and #2), you need to make sure Germany is in a position to fund it and ideally ensure that the occupation isn't burdensome on you.
    Some sort of "occupation tax", to be paid in Germany currency as a percentage of GDP to the occupying powers - if they stop occupying, the money stops. Likely to be based off pre-war German military spending as a fraction of the economy.
  4. "Prussian Militarism" rather than Nazis or Reds under the Bed is likely to be the major bogeyman - ITTL I think Hitler is likely to be seen as more of a figurehead for the General Staff and less as the root cause of everything. Add in with no Japan or US joining in, this will be seen as much more of a replay of the Western Front, which will serve to emphasise certain WW1 attitudes/prejudices.
  5. "Population Transfer" won't cause anybody to blink after what the Germans have just got up to. If you're on the Deutsche Volksliste then unless you were also working actively for the resistance you're about to find yourself and all your family involuntarily moving house.
  6. They don't want the Poles starting a war with the Soviets, so they're going to get territorial compensation for their losses from Germany. At the same time, the German problem is heavily identified with Prussia (see #4) - so completely disposing of East Prussia by giving it to Poland without the population and eliminating the Junkers as a class by turning their tenants into factory workers spread across Germany is very attractive indeed. Handing over other bits of Germany, much less so.
  7. The League of Nations is a dead letter, but some form of collaboration between the Entente powers is pretty much a given. I'm envisioning it as something of a cross between NATO, BENELUX and the European Coal & Steel Community, growing out of the wartime military and economic arrangements between the Entente powers which I suspect will prove hard to untangle.
Would the rules on Surströmming be affected by the Swedish/Finnish Union? The Royal Ordinance of OTL 1949 would have only affected the Swedish part of the Union, but as far as I can tell, the Finnish fishermen would also bringing up the Baltic Herring. Could they process the fish in the same way the Swedes do and then sell it in Sweden prior to the beginning of August?

Fortunately, I don't expect things to be different for Harakl iTTL. Though I'm surprised the Icelanders don't deliberately try to embarrass the Swedes with "You do it to herrings, we do it to Shark!".
 
Last edited:
Top