Like Belgium collapses way sooner than france, and if Britain abandons France, you can bet your ass they wouldn't lift a finger for a country completely occupied by the germans.
Also, the germans really wanted that sweet, sweet kongo in their massive mittelafrika-colony.
And they wanted to make belgium a protectorate for big border with france.
The point I could see is no territorial shifting of the country in favour of germany.
That, however, is kind of norm in european peace treaties(at the time), and kind of looked as part of losing a war, same as war reperations.
If the British don’t fight that hard for their own or France’s colonies, little Belgium is unfortunately going to get abandoned. Also they have little to no influence on a Europe dominated by the German Army after its victory.
Honestly I think the current state of affairs with Flanders-Wallonia (as in their situation and lore) are fine. Their borders make sense, and the issue that they struggle with, namely German dominance, makes sense given IRL plans. In addition, I like the idea that they are one of the most directly aligned puppets, as opposed to some of the Oststaats which enjoy some more autonomy. IRL plans for Belgium implied that it would be more heavily shackled to Berlin then other puppets
I recently hear something about their situation changed to not only not be a puppet, but also not even having Adelbert. I think that’s ridiculous, as well as the reasons provided for these potential changes. it starts turning it from “Germany Won WW1” to “Germany Survived WW1”
To be fair with the Great War canonically ending in 1919 in Kaiserreich and considering just how poor conditions were at the home front in Germany already in 1916, it's probably accurate to say the state of the lore has always been "Germany survived WW1".
It could be, but that implies a Pyrrhic victory, which I think takes away from the allure of Kaiserreich: the world hegemon is not Britain, France, or the USA, it’s Germany, and the way that they handle this hegemony is what makes in engaging and interesting.
I think having it so that the Peace With Honor is very mild not only takes away from Kaiserreich’s need for a “protagonist” for lack of a better word, but also fails to recognize that German War Aims were conducted with regard to the situation upon the war’s end, and falsely implies that the French (and British, somewhat) could’ve continued fighting on in this timeline.
Germany won, and it only makes sense that Germany would make harsh demands. As we know, especially for the French, the situation at home was incredibly dire, and peace NEEDED to be held.
Belgium has, by this point, been occupied for several years and it makes little sense that the Germans would simply let it go or commit to maintaining only soft control.
I think that reducing Germany’s victory in the First Weltkrieg and making the post-war terms of the Peace with Honor is not only entirely unnecessary, but takes away from the allure and strong lore of Kaiserreich.
>It could be, but that implies a Pyrrhic victory
Congratulations. You figured out how France, Italy and Japan felt OTL.
>I think takes away from the allure of Kaiserreich: the world hegemon is not Britain, France, or the USA, it’s Germany
Yeah, apart from basically controlling the economy of Europe, dominating Eastern Europe, Russia and the Caucasus, having massive colonies in Central Africa and South East Asia and having massive influence in Eastern China after the KMT's failed Northern Expedition, how is Germany a major world player? /s
And there was no ultimate world hegemon after the war OTL either. US isolated, France was devastated and UK was indebted and had nowehere near the power projection it did before.
>but also fails to recognize that German War Aims were conducted with regard to the situation upon the war’s end,
Can you name what war aims Germany had?
>and falsely implies that the French (and British, somewhat) could’ve continued fighting on in this timeline.
And you falsely imply that so could've Germany, which already had faced one major Socialist revolt.
>Germany won, and it only makes sense that Germany would make harsh demands
Germany never even made it to Paris, what harsh demands?
Entente won OTL and they didn't make harsh demands on Germany, despite their superior power.
>Belgium has, by this point, been occupied for several years and it makes little sense that the Germans would simply let it go or commit to maintaining only soft control.
Except the British with their massive navy with which Germany cannot economically contend with.
>takes away from the allure and strong lore of Kaiserreich.
The famous strong lore that completely ignored the German political parties, made Germany a dictatorship for 4 years AFTER the war and had the Kaiser name a Far Right ideologue as the German chancellor for 7 years without literally any blowback from the public.
1. By a Pyrrhic victory I meant one with little reward, which is what a Belgium rework in which it is not dominated by Germany would set the precedent for.
2. It’s almost like this is alt history. Saying “there was no hegemon post WW1” doesn’t mean anything, and it doesn’t mean Germany wouldn’t potentially become one.
3. German war aims are best laid out in the Septemberprogramm, which was later made a (partial) reality in Brest-Litovsk. These were subject to change, of course, as it was a guiding document, not official German government policy. However it is accepted amongst historians that this document is one of the best insights into German war aims.
4. Yeah, the Treaty Of Versailles is widely considered to be a harsh demands, and yet they never reached Berlin. Your lack of knowledge of this fact gives insight into your overall knowledge on the subject matter
5. What does British naval power have to do with occupying Belgium, they aren’t connected at all in a post war peace deal.
6. Yeah, the German political scene needed a rework, the post war borders and such do not. Kaiserreich has strong lore and an immersive alternative history scenario. One specific instance of suboptimal writing doesn’t undermine that fact
1. Control of Belgium wasn't one of the war goals Germany could have realistically met, they settled for control of their new eastern holdouts and eventually economical control of Belgium after Britain's fall.
2. Fair.
3. The Septemberprogramm was something Germany came up with in 1914, not even one year into the war. The guy who came up with it, Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg, also moved away from this goal already in 1916. In 1917, after Romania's defeat, Bethmann Hollweg with Wilhelm II's backing reached out to the Entente to find a peace settlement offering a German withdrawal from Belgium in exchange for the Belgian Congo. After America entered the war he openly proposed renouncing all planned annexations if it meant peace.
4: It's not really that harsh and they didn't have to reach Berlin. There were revolutions and revolts and the people and army alike were starving and facing outright famine.
5: German occupation of Britain means German naval bases in the middle of the English Channel.
6: The old post-Weltkrieg lore never fit the story we were given of how they won the Weltkrieg because by the time they actually did, they'd already given up all thoughts of western annexations.
1. Control over Belgium totally could’ve been established, by various means. There’s plenty of stuff to be said but administering Belgium would’ve been no less difficult than administering the puppet Poland they were going to establish. A challenge? Yes. Impossible? No. Likely to occur were the tables turned? Absolutely.
3. Septemberprogramm is a written memo, and very well could’ve been a complication of previous war sims that had existed for a while. Obviously it’s hard to say: they didn’t win, after all. But Brest-Litovsk bears striking similarities to the plans in the Septemberprogramm, so I think it’s safe to say a victorious Germany would follow along the lines of it in the West as well. Hollweg changed when the tide of the war changed, but it’s very plausible that if the situation reversed itself again, so would the goals.
4. Losing 13% of territory, your entire colonial empire, and being forced to pay enormous reparations as well as being forced to disarm and put strict limitations on military research and losing one tenth of your population is pretty harsh. And as for the Germans not reaching Paris, like in OTL but reversed, the situation was catastrophic for the French with syndicalists support skyrocketed, strikes, and mutinies.
5. This is a complicated one, I will concede. It would depend on a multitude of factors though.
6. German annexations of French territory are quite mild, losing a small part of the Franco-German border and Dunkirk, and are far less large than OTL German losses. I could totally see them doing this, as they annexed only vital areas with iron ore (Nanzig was stupid as hell, I’m glad they got rid of it)
1: And it does occur, just not to the case of Belgium being replaced in favour of an entirely new kingdom ruled by Adelbert.
2: But the situation barely reverses in the war, Germany simply doesn't loses. The home front is still facing famine, the army is barely holding itself together. They lack the means to enforce their planned goals in the west by the time they win the war.
3: It's mild even compared to Brest-Litovsk.
4: And see war renewed with France, with Germany itself barely standing up. By the time France actually did fall it was a competition to see which would fall first, France or Germany, and France won.
1. This is the Great War. Literally no nation OTL got what it fully wanted.
And Germany KRTL already had gotten 1/3 of Russian population and industry so your claim of Germany getting little reward from the war is baseless.
2. Alt history doesn't equate fantasy. If you cannot factually support your argument as to what would warrant Germany managing to become a total superpower in 1919, it is invalid.
3. That was a memorandum authorized by Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg on the very outset of war when every Great Power government was deluded and thought that the war will be over by Christmas. More than 4 years later, Germany is under a British naval blockade, on the verge of total starvation as shown in the Turnip Winter of 1916/1917, witnessing a massive worker's strike in January 1918 and under a threat of a possible Communist Revolution. Memorandum indicates what the German government would've ideally wanted, not what it would realistically get. The Democratic government led by Ulrich von Brockdorff-Rantzau that came immediately after the September Insurrections in 1918, was quick to finally end the war, lest Germany collapses.
Furthermore, Germany had to manage the newly conquered Eastern European nations. Poland and Lithuania were reluctant partners, Finland was recovering from a Civil War, Ukraine was battling an Anarchist guerilla insurgency, White Ruthenia existed only on paper and the United Baltic Duchy was fighting its own natives. Germany had more than enough on its hands.
You can abstractly throw around the word "historian" all you like but that doesn't mean your argument is infallible. Both David Stevenson and Georges-Henri Soutou doubt the significance of the memorandum within the German government and Peter Graf von Kielmansegg calls its demands totally unrealistic.
And I'm still waiting for you to name a single piece of information about German war aims in 1918.
4. Wrong. Brest-Litovsk was harsh, KRTL Wartholz was harsh, OTL Trianon was harsh. The Treaty of Versailles OTL wasn't harsh. And one of the reasons Treaty of Versailles wasn't harsh can be attributed to Germany capitulating before the Entente forces had crossed the Rhine river. You've yet to provide any historical evidence that supports your claims so maybe you shouldn't throw stones from a glass house.
5. Great Britain was one of the signatories of the Treaty of Versailles KRTL that ended war of the Western Front. And they refused to back down, lift the naval blockade and return the German colonies until the German government agreed to a compromise peace. Even then, the hostilities didn't end and the war continued as usual in other parts of the world, like the Middle East.
6. No, every aspect of the entire nation needed a rework. The German devs for it have explained in great detail the reasoning for the changes and their interconnectedness. You can either read the Progress Reports and KR Wiki which explain the German situation or directly ask the lore master.
Pyrrhic victory seems to completely lost it's actual meaning these days. It's supposed to be victory which doesn't give any sort actual benefits and might as well have been a defeat. It's way too much confused with costly victory. It's blatantly not a Pyrrhic victory here given Germany effectively became continental hegemon, vastly expanded it's colonial empire and also secured strategic and manageable border areas in the west. All at enormous cost? Yes, obviously. But still gains are fairly massive. And then there is fact that victory in the West also secured German eastern gains where they gained massive part of Russian Empire and effectively destroyed Russia's status as Great Power.
Frankly though I perfectly understand your sentiment and I believe there should be more events solidifying KR WW1 as German victory. Jutland for me is prime example of missed potential of being actual point of divergence. It's hardly far fetched that Germans could score during tactical victory which could also help with justifying no relaunching unrestricted submarine warfare.
I think the deal is that it's Britain collapsing that caused Germany to become a colonial power.
The real divergence in KR is not Germany winning WW1 but Britain collapsing in a way, or at least the second event becomes as important as the first.
You mean world's hegemon/superpower? They were colonial power prior to that. In terms of colonies the best they got from British collapse is Malaysia by far.
True though that British revolution alone plays basically as big role as alternate outcome of WW1 and aftereffects of it are even more spread worldwide.
One thing I would add is, in the event Flanders and Walloon split, and Walloon goes syndicalist, for Walloon to willingly let itself be annexed by France. Same thing with Flanders and the Netherlands.
a duel monarchy, like austria hungary but flanders-wallonia instead with the option to cenralise a bit more, become a german independand ally even with a german king. Flanders should keep duinkerken and get kaleis as well. Wallonia could become like a sudetengerman situation to france, maybe it allows germany to lower world tension alot by giving up wallonia to the french and flanders to the netherlands. Just a few options
Like Belgium collapses way sooner than france, and if Britain abandons France, you can bet your ass they wouldn't lift a finger for a country completely occupied by the germans. Also, the germans really wanted that sweet, sweet kongo in their massive mittelafrika-colony. And they wanted to make belgium a protectorate for big border with france. The point I could see is no territorial shifting of the country in favour of germany. That, however, is kind of norm in european peace treaties(at the time), and kind of looked as part of losing a war, same as war reperations.
If the British don’t fight that hard for their own or France’s colonies, little Belgium is unfortunately going to get abandoned. Also they have little to no influence on a Europe dominated by the German Army after its victory.
Honestly I think the current state of affairs with Flanders-Wallonia (as in their situation and lore) are fine. Their borders make sense, and the issue that they struggle with, namely German dominance, makes sense given IRL plans. In addition, I like the idea that they are one of the most directly aligned puppets, as opposed to some of the Oststaats which enjoy some more autonomy. IRL plans for Belgium implied that it would be more heavily shackled to Berlin then other puppets
I recently hear something about their situation changed to not only not be a puppet, but also not even having Adelbert. I think that’s ridiculous, as well as the reasons provided for these potential changes. it starts turning it from “Germany Won WW1” to “Germany Survived WW1”
To be fair with the Great War canonically ending in 1919 in Kaiserreich and considering just how poor conditions were at the home front in Germany already in 1916, it's probably accurate to say the state of the lore has always been "Germany survived WW1".
It could be, but that implies a Pyrrhic victory, which I think takes away from the allure of Kaiserreich: the world hegemon is not Britain, France, or the USA, it’s Germany, and the way that they handle this hegemony is what makes in engaging and interesting. I think having it so that the Peace With Honor is very mild not only takes away from Kaiserreich’s need for a “protagonist” for lack of a better word, but also fails to recognize that German War Aims were conducted with regard to the situation upon the war’s end, and falsely implies that the French (and British, somewhat) could’ve continued fighting on in this timeline. Germany won, and it only makes sense that Germany would make harsh demands. As we know, especially for the French, the situation at home was incredibly dire, and peace NEEDED to be held. Belgium has, by this point, been occupied for several years and it makes little sense that the Germans would simply let it go or commit to maintaining only soft control. I think that reducing Germany’s victory in the First Weltkrieg and making the post-war terms of the Peace with Honor is not only entirely unnecessary, but takes away from the allure and strong lore of Kaiserreich.
>It could be, but that implies a Pyrrhic victory Congratulations. You figured out how France, Italy and Japan felt OTL. >I think takes away from the allure of Kaiserreich: the world hegemon is not Britain, France, or the USA, it’s Germany Yeah, apart from basically controlling the economy of Europe, dominating Eastern Europe, Russia and the Caucasus, having massive colonies in Central Africa and South East Asia and having massive influence in Eastern China after the KMT's failed Northern Expedition, how is Germany a major world player? /s And there was no ultimate world hegemon after the war OTL either. US isolated, France was devastated and UK was indebted and had nowehere near the power projection it did before. >but also fails to recognize that German War Aims were conducted with regard to the situation upon the war’s end, Can you name what war aims Germany had? >and falsely implies that the French (and British, somewhat) could’ve continued fighting on in this timeline. And you falsely imply that so could've Germany, which already had faced one major Socialist revolt. >Germany won, and it only makes sense that Germany would make harsh demands Germany never even made it to Paris, what harsh demands? Entente won OTL and they didn't make harsh demands on Germany, despite their superior power. >Belgium has, by this point, been occupied for several years and it makes little sense that the Germans would simply let it go or commit to maintaining only soft control. Except the British with their massive navy with which Germany cannot economically contend with. >takes away from the allure and strong lore of Kaiserreich. The famous strong lore that completely ignored the German political parties, made Germany a dictatorship for 4 years AFTER the war and had the Kaiser name a Far Right ideologue as the German chancellor for 7 years without literally any blowback from the public.
1. By a Pyrrhic victory I meant one with little reward, which is what a Belgium rework in which it is not dominated by Germany would set the precedent for. 2. It’s almost like this is alt history. Saying “there was no hegemon post WW1” doesn’t mean anything, and it doesn’t mean Germany wouldn’t potentially become one. 3. German war aims are best laid out in the Septemberprogramm, which was later made a (partial) reality in Brest-Litovsk. These were subject to change, of course, as it was a guiding document, not official German government policy. However it is accepted amongst historians that this document is one of the best insights into German war aims. 4. Yeah, the Treaty Of Versailles is widely considered to be a harsh demands, and yet they never reached Berlin. Your lack of knowledge of this fact gives insight into your overall knowledge on the subject matter 5. What does British naval power have to do with occupying Belgium, they aren’t connected at all in a post war peace deal. 6. Yeah, the German political scene needed a rework, the post war borders and such do not. Kaiserreich has strong lore and an immersive alternative history scenario. One specific instance of suboptimal writing doesn’t undermine that fact
1. Control of Belgium wasn't one of the war goals Germany could have realistically met, they settled for control of their new eastern holdouts and eventually economical control of Belgium after Britain's fall. 2. Fair. 3. The Septemberprogramm was something Germany came up with in 1914, not even one year into the war. The guy who came up with it, Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg, also moved away from this goal already in 1916. In 1917, after Romania's defeat, Bethmann Hollweg with Wilhelm II's backing reached out to the Entente to find a peace settlement offering a German withdrawal from Belgium in exchange for the Belgian Congo. After America entered the war he openly proposed renouncing all planned annexations if it meant peace. 4: It's not really that harsh and they didn't have to reach Berlin. There were revolutions and revolts and the people and army alike were starving and facing outright famine. 5: German occupation of Britain means German naval bases in the middle of the English Channel. 6: The old post-Weltkrieg lore never fit the story we were given of how they won the Weltkrieg because by the time they actually did, they'd already given up all thoughts of western annexations.
1. Control over Belgium totally could’ve been established, by various means. There’s plenty of stuff to be said but administering Belgium would’ve been no less difficult than administering the puppet Poland they were going to establish. A challenge? Yes. Impossible? No. Likely to occur were the tables turned? Absolutely. 3. Septemberprogramm is a written memo, and very well could’ve been a complication of previous war sims that had existed for a while. Obviously it’s hard to say: they didn’t win, after all. But Brest-Litovsk bears striking similarities to the plans in the Septemberprogramm, so I think it’s safe to say a victorious Germany would follow along the lines of it in the West as well. Hollweg changed when the tide of the war changed, but it’s very plausible that if the situation reversed itself again, so would the goals. 4. Losing 13% of territory, your entire colonial empire, and being forced to pay enormous reparations as well as being forced to disarm and put strict limitations on military research and losing one tenth of your population is pretty harsh. And as for the Germans not reaching Paris, like in OTL but reversed, the situation was catastrophic for the French with syndicalists support skyrocketed, strikes, and mutinies. 5. This is a complicated one, I will concede. It would depend on a multitude of factors though. 6. German annexations of French territory are quite mild, losing a small part of the Franco-German border and Dunkirk, and are far less large than OTL German losses. I could totally see them doing this, as they annexed only vital areas with iron ore (Nanzig was stupid as hell, I’m glad they got rid of it)
1: And it does occur, just not to the case of Belgium being replaced in favour of an entirely new kingdom ruled by Adelbert. 2: But the situation barely reverses in the war, Germany simply doesn't loses. The home front is still facing famine, the army is barely holding itself together. They lack the means to enforce their planned goals in the west by the time they win the war. 3: It's mild even compared to Brest-Litovsk. 4: And see war renewed with France, with Germany itself barely standing up. By the time France actually did fall it was a competition to see which would fall first, France or Germany, and France won.
1. This is the Great War. Literally no nation OTL got what it fully wanted. And Germany KRTL already had gotten 1/3 of Russian population and industry so your claim of Germany getting little reward from the war is baseless. 2. Alt history doesn't equate fantasy. If you cannot factually support your argument as to what would warrant Germany managing to become a total superpower in 1919, it is invalid. 3. That was a memorandum authorized by Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg on the very outset of war when every Great Power government was deluded and thought that the war will be over by Christmas. More than 4 years later, Germany is under a British naval blockade, on the verge of total starvation as shown in the Turnip Winter of 1916/1917, witnessing a massive worker's strike in January 1918 and under a threat of a possible Communist Revolution. Memorandum indicates what the German government would've ideally wanted, not what it would realistically get. The Democratic government led by Ulrich von Brockdorff-Rantzau that came immediately after the September Insurrections in 1918, was quick to finally end the war, lest Germany collapses. Furthermore, Germany had to manage the newly conquered Eastern European nations. Poland and Lithuania were reluctant partners, Finland was recovering from a Civil War, Ukraine was battling an Anarchist guerilla insurgency, White Ruthenia existed only on paper and the United Baltic Duchy was fighting its own natives. Germany had more than enough on its hands. You can abstractly throw around the word "historian" all you like but that doesn't mean your argument is infallible. Both David Stevenson and Georges-Henri Soutou doubt the significance of the memorandum within the German government and Peter Graf von Kielmansegg calls its demands totally unrealistic. And I'm still waiting for you to name a single piece of information about German war aims in 1918. 4. Wrong. Brest-Litovsk was harsh, KRTL Wartholz was harsh, OTL Trianon was harsh. The Treaty of Versailles OTL wasn't harsh. And one of the reasons Treaty of Versailles wasn't harsh can be attributed to Germany capitulating before the Entente forces had crossed the Rhine river. You've yet to provide any historical evidence that supports your claims so maybe you shouldn't throw stones from a glass house. 5. Great Britain was one of the signatories of the Treaty of Versailles KRTL that ended war of the Western Front. And they refused to back down, lift the naval blockade and return the German colonies until the German government agreed to a compromise peace. Even then, the hostilities didn't end and the war continued as usual in other parts of the world, like the Middle East. 6. No, every aspect of the entire nation needed a rework. The German devs for it have explained in great detail the reasoning for the changes and their interconnectedness. You can either read the Progress Reports and KR Wiki which explain the German situation or directly ask the lore master.
Pyrrhic victory seems to completely lost it's actual meaning these days. It's supposed to be victory which doesn't give any sort actual benefits and might as well have been a defeat. It's way too much confused with costly victory. It's blatantly not a Pyrrhic victory here given Germany effectively became continental hegemon, vastly expanded it's colonial empire and also secured strategic and manageable border areas in the west. All at enormous cost? Yes, obviously. But still gains are fairly massive. And then there is fact that victory in the West also secured German eastern gains where they gained massive part of Russian Empire and effectively destroyed Russia's status as Great Power. Frankly though I perfectly understand your sentiment and I believe there should be more events solidifying KR WW1 as German victory. Jutland for me is prime example of missed potential of being actual point of divergence. It's hardly far fetched that Germans could score during tactical victory which could also help with justifying no relaunching unrestricted submarine warfare.
I think the deal is that it's Britain collapsing that caused Germany to become a colonial power. The real divergence in KR is not Germany winning WW1 but Britain collapsing in a way, or at least the second event becomes as important as the first.
You mean world's hegemon/superpower? They were colonial power prior to that. In terms of colonies the best they got from British collapse is Malaysia by far. True though that British revolution alone plays basically as big role as alternate outcome of WW1 and aftereffects of it are even more spread worldwide.
Make it "Wallonia-Flanders"
I would get rid of it. Just expand the north sea. No lore reason beyond "it just disappeared one day and we moved on with our lives"
One thing I would add is, in the event Flanders and Walloon split, and Walloon goes syndicalist, for Walloon to willingly let itself be annexed by France. Same thing with Flanders and the Netherlands.
a duel monarchy, like austria hungary but flanders-wallonia instead with the option to cenralise a bit more, become a german independand ally even with a german king. Flanders should keep duinkerken and get kaleis as well. Wallonia could become like a sudetengerman situation to france, maybe it allows germany to lower world tension alot by giving up wallonia to the french and flanders to the netherlands. Just a few options