Germany wins WWI: In which german city would they have negotiated and signed the peace treaty?

Would it have been Berlin? It already was the place for several other conferences and negotiations (1880), (1884).

Would it have been Frankfurt am Main? The city were France had to sign the Treaty of Frankfurt in 1871?

Maybe Leipzig because of the victorious Völkerschlacht/Battle of the nations? Although Prussia and Austria didnt fought alone against France, thats why the battle has that name

Maybe Metz or Strasburg to show France that they will never get those cities?

Was it ever mentioned by someone in the government or in the memoirs of a general, or politician where such a conference maybe could have been held? Or would they only have started to think about it after the war?
 
Congress of Vienna II

Reality is probably a neutral place like the Netherlands, Britain can't really be defeated so it more of a conference of equals and a slightly favorable Central Powers victory.
 
Aside the almost unavoidable question of
WHEN​
and​
HOW​
said victory might occur due to the 'multinational' participation - regardless how 'quick' a victory might occur and definitly never as crushing as one side (in this case the CP side) would be able truly dictate everything - it would most likely be some neutral place. Therefore IMHO no city/place within one of the participants borders.
While the Netherlnads had quite some 'history' of offering (the) room(s) for negotiations ... why not some swiss place? ... Geneva? ... Lausanne? (the latter probably too francophone to be accepted by the german side)
Another go might be some scandinavian place perhaps.
 
Would it have been Berlin? It already was the place for several other conferences and negotiations (1880), (1884).
I am thinking that a German WWI victory would have resulted in peace treaties, not a peace treaty. Thus, multiple signing locations based on the strength of the German position verse the allied country in question:

France. Germany wants to drive home their victory over their principle enemy. Thus, the treaty location is going to be rich with symbolism- well from the German point of view. The treaty will be signed on German territory-in Strasbourg in particular. France is then required to affirm as "Forever German" in the course of signing.

UK: Due in part to favorable geography, The UK is far more intact than France and can continue to resist indefinetely. There is no way that the British will sign even a stray dog return agreement in Germany- let alone a German dictated peace treaty. Germany or a neutral, the UK will not be signing a peace treaty. Rather, the UK proposes Amsterdam as a neutral city to sign various uhmm....."memos of understanding" for going forward.

Russia: Treaty signing location is Kognisberg. The White Russian faction makes an appearance- and is affirmed by Germany as being the legitimate government of the Russian Empire. German treaty demands are dialed down and nobody want to weaken the legitimacy of the Whites via excessive demands. The Reds, however, refuse to acknowledge or comply with the treaty and loudly state that the White faction has no authority to sign it.
 
Last edited:
It will either be an Occupied City (most likely a french one) Or a neutral city.

As noted Germany cant really force GB or the US if they are in it to accept Terms dictated to them by Germany, But Germany can firce terms in others such as France or Italy or Russia.
So if they are dictating terms it will be in a city close to the boarder /front of each respective country.
If it is a general end of war with England and the US giving up the fight and acknowledging Germany gets Europe then it will be in a natural location. If the US is not in the war and it is Germany and GB formalizing that Germany can do whatever it wants with France Italy and Russia then it will take place in the US

If it is Germany dictating terms to the US and GB it will be aboard the Aliens Command ship in orbit, 😁
 
France. Germany wants to drive home their victory over their principle enemy. Thus, the treaty location is going to be rich with symbolism- well from the German point of view. The treaty will be signed on German territory-in Strasbourg in particular. France is then required to affirm as "Forever German" in the course of signing.

Hm. Wouldn't Versailles be an option? After all, that's where the end of the Franco-Prussian war was signed, so I'd think that they'd want to do that again. Driving home exactly what has happened.

UK: Due in part to favorable geography, The UK is far more intact than France and can continue to resist indefinetely. There is no way that the British will sign even a stray dog return agreement in Germany- let alone a German dictated peace treaty. Germany or a neutral, the UK will not be signing a peace treaty. Rather, the UK proposes Amsterdam as a neutral city to sign various uhmm....."memos of understanding" for going forward.

Maybe Switzerland? I can see not Sweden, and possibly not the Netherlands, as they were on the close side with the Central powers. Perhaps Bern. Then in a generation, people will look back at a war where much blood and treasure was lost for nothing, and refer to it as "Feeling the Bern".

Russia: Treaty signing location is Kognisberg. The White Russian faction makes an appearance- and is affirmed by Germany as being the legitimate government of the Russian Empire. German treaty demands are dialed down and nobody want to weaken the legitimacy of the Whites via excessive demands. The Reds, however, refuse to acknowledge or comply with the treaty and loudly state that the White faction has no authority to sign it.

I can see Konigsberg, or Berlin, just to drive home the point.
 
Hm. Wouldn't Versailles be an option? After all, that's where the end of the Franco-Prussian war was signed, so I'd think that they'd want to do that again. Driving home exactly what has happened.
Versailles would be great- if the WWI French suffered a total collapse that would make such a venue possible. I am thinking that the WWI French could be strong armed into a dictated peace treaty on German terms, but not pushed into total capitulation.
 
Congress of Vienna II

Reality is probably a neutral place like the Netherlands, Britain can't really be defeated so it more of a conference of equals and a slightly favorable Central Powers victory.
There could be separate peace treaties for Britain and France.
Russia: Treaty signing location is Kognisberg. The White Russian faction makes an appearance- and is affirmed by Germany as being the legitimate government of the Russian Empire. German treaty demands are dialed down and nobody want to weaken the legitimacy of the Whites via excessive demands. The Reds, however, refuse to acknowledge or comply with the treaty and loudly state that the White faction has no authority to sign it.
Why wouldn't the Russian treaty be signed at Brest-Litovsk as it was in OTL?
 
Hm. Wouldn't Versailles be an option? After all, that's where the end of the Franco-Prussian war was signed, so I'd think that they'd want to do that again. Driving home exactly what has happened.
This. If the French are defeated, I don't see the Germans wanting to sign the peace anywhere but there.
 
This. If the French are defeated, I don't see the Germans wanting to sign the peace anywhere but there.
There are varying levels of defeat. My guess is that a Versailles signing would take a defeat amounting to a French national collapse. In the end, I dont think the WWI French could be defeated to this level.
 
Would it have been Berlin? It already was the place for several other conferences and negotiations (1880), (1884).

Would it have been Frankfurt am Main? The city were France had to sign the Treaty of Frankfurt in 1871?

Maybe Leipzig because of the victorious Völkerschlacht/Battle of the nations? Although Prussia and Austria didnt fought alone against France, thats why the battle has that name

Maybe Metz or Strasburg to show France that they will never get those cities?

Was it ever mentioned by someone in the government or in the memoirs of a general, or politician where such a conference maybe could have been held? Or would they only have started to think about it after the war?
Cryptic said:
“I am thinking that a German WWI victory would have resulted in peace treaties, not a peace treaty. Thus, multiple signing locations based on the strength of the German position versus the allied country in question.”

I agree with Cryptic that there would have probably been multiple peace treaties. The location choice, by the German Empire, of where each treaty would be signed would depend on two conditions: (1 ) Whether the other power had been virtually defeated or had been essentially untouched by the German armies. And (2 ) what future relations the German Empire wanted with each power in Germany’s long-term interests.

Symbolism would undoubtedly be a factor in how Germany chose, and conducted, her location choices as their previous history shows. In 1871, in ending the Franco-Prussian War, the Germans required France to pay an indemnity that was equivalent to the indemnity Napoleon imposed on Prussia in 1807.

In 1914, the Germans defeated the Russian armies in East Prussia at what was actually Allenstein. But instead of calling it the Battle of Allenstein, the Germans harkened back to 1410 and christened it the Second Battle of Tannenberg as Wikipedia explains :
Wikipedia said:
“The almost miraculous outcome brought considerable prestige to Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg and his rising staff-officer Erich Ludendorff. Although the battle actually took place near Allenstein (Olsztyn), Hindenburg named it after Tannenberg, 30 km (19 mi) to the west, in order to avenge the Teutonic Knights' defeat at the First Battle of Tannenberg 500 years earlier.”
So, with these two conditions and symbolism in mind, here are my suggestions for the German Empire’s location choices.

(1 ) ITALY. Italy had been a member of the Triple Alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary for over 32 years. But Italy abandoned this alliance and declared war on Austria-Hungary in 1915 and on Germany in 1916. The Teutonic Duo delivered a devastating defeat to the Italians in October to November 1917 in the Battle of Caporetto. Both powers held Italy in a special disdain and considered her a back-stabbing traitor.

Austria-Hungary could end her war with Italy by signing the “Treaty of Karfreit”, after an Austrian town whose Italian name was … Caporetto. And then making sure it would be widely known as the “Treaty of Caporetto”.

Germany’s choice of where the Italians would sign to end their war would be in Detmold, the capital of the German principality of Lippe which was considered the site of a famous battle in ancient history. The “Treaty of Teutoburg Forest” would memorialize anew the Roman defeat in 9 AD by the German tribes, almost 2,000 years later. Break out the wagons-lits a la OTL Compiègne.

( 2) RUSSIA. Russia lost the Battle of Tannenberg in 1914 and would sign the “Treaty of Tannenberg” to end her war with Germany.

Austria-Hungary would have the Russians travel to Moravia to sign the “Treaty of Buchlau” at Buchlau Castle, the site of an earlier 1908 Austrian-Russian agreement that turned out very badly for Russia , which had involved a great loss of face for Russia.

The Ottoman Empire would have the Russian delegates journey to Constantinople to sign their peace treaty to unmistakenly underline the fact that Russia would never acquire Constantinople nor gain control of the Straits. The treaty, however, would be signed in a small village west of Constantinople called San Stefano. This “Treaty of San Stefano” would totally wipe out the memory of an earlier, temporary, also named “Treaty of San Stefano” which a victorious Russia had forced the Ottoman Empire to sign in 1878.

(3 ) FRANCE and (4) GREAT BRITAIN. The Germans would choose Belgium as the site and the name the “Treaty of Waterloo” for several reasons in order to make propaganda and good public relations.

Germany would stress that holding the peace treaty negotiations in Belgium would help to stimulate the war-torn Belgian economy to recover by servicing the various delegations. The world would also see that Belgium was once again a free nation not at the beck and call of the Germans.

Waterloo had been the 1815 site of a previous French defeat. Simultaneously, Waterloo was the site of a great British victory. And, most importantly from Germany’s viewpoint, the British and the Prussians had fought as allies, on the same side, against France in winning at Waterloo in 1815, something that the Germans would want the British to recall.

The Germans would almost do a repeat of the fairly gentle 1866 “Peace of Prague” which ended the war between the Prussians and the Austrians and enabled them to become friends and allies a few years later.

The French, on the other hand, would suffer a similar fate to the 1866 German allies of Austria. In that 1866 war there were annexations and cessions of territory mixed with some leniency for the Austrian allies of Hanover, Saxony, Bavaria, Hesse-Darmstadt, Nassau, Hesse-Kassel and a few other smaller German states.

(5 ) UNITED STATES. Even more than with Great Britain, the Germans would want a good relationship with the United States to be quickly restored. The Germans would suggest that the negotiations take place in Princeton, New Jersey, more specifically Princeton University where American President Woodrow Wilson had been a recent president of the university.

By doing this, the Germans would be flattering and appealing to Wilson’s well-known vanity to be a world peacemaker. The terms of a German-American peace treaty would be secondary and not really important in view of Germany’s long-term interests. I don’t think President Wilson could resist this call to step onto History’s stage and would heed Clio’s call.

( 6) JAPAN. The Germans, in what would be a real stroke of diplomacy which would kill many birds with only one stone, could also ask President Wilson to become the mediator for ending their war with Japan. They could even suggest the location of Portsmouth, New Hampshire where a previous American President, Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt, had chaperoned an end to the Russo-Japanese War in the 1905 “Treaty of Portsmouth” which won Roosevelt the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize.

Not only did Roosevelt and Wilson hate each other, Wilson was also very suspicious of Japan’s growing strength in Asia and in the Pacific. During the war, Japan had grabbed the German possessions of Kiautschou(AKA Kiaochou AKA Tsingtao AKA Qingdao) in China and the Pacific islands of the Marshalls, the Marianas and the Carolines.

If anyone could get their territories back for Germany, it would be President Wilson, whose country was the nominal American ally of Japan, and who would undoubtedly jump at the chance to win a Nobel Peace Prize like his great rival President Roosevelt.

It really wouldn’t matter to the Germans, since these colonies had been a money drain, but it had the great potential to cause quarrels between Wilson and the Japanese while simultaneously endearing the Germans to Wilson by letting him strut on the world stage as a peacemaker.
 
I agree with Cryptic that there would have probably been multiple peace treaties. The location choice, by the German Empire, of where each treaty would be signed would depend on two conditions: (1 ) Whether the other power had been virtually defeated or had been essentially untouched by the German armies. And (2 ) what future relations the German Empire wanted with each power in Germany’s long-term interests.

Symbolism would undoubtedly be a factor in how Germany chose, and conducted, her location choices as their previous history shows. In 1871, in ending the Franco-Prussian War, the Germans required France to pay an indemnity that was equivalent to the indemnity Napoleon imposed on Prussia in 1807.

In 1914, the Germans defeated the Russian armies in East Prussia at what was actually Allenstein. But instead of calling it the Battle of Allenstein, the Germans harkened back to 1410 and christened it the Second Battle of Tannenberg as Wikipedia explains :

So, with these two conditions and symbolism in mind, here are my suggestions for the German Empire’s location choices.

(1 ) ITALY. Italy had been a member of the Triple Alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary for over 32 years. But Italy abandoned this alliance and declared war on Austria-Hungary in 1915 and on Germany in 1916. The Teutonic Duo delivered a devastating defeat to the Italians in October to November 1917 in the Battle of Caporetto. Both powers held Italy in a special disdain and considered her a back-stabbing traitor.

Austria-Hungary could end her war with Italy by signing the “Treaty of Karfreit”, after an Austrian town whose Italian name was … Caporetto. And then making sure it would be widely known as the “Treaty of Caporetto”.

Germany’s choice of where the Italians would sign to end their war would be in Detmold, the capital of the German principality of Lippe which was considered the site of a famous battle in ancient history. The “Treaty of Teutoburg Forest” would memorialize anew the Roman defeat in 9 AD by the German tribes, almost 2,000 years later. Break out the wagons-lits a la OTL Compiègne.

( 2) RUSSIA. Russia lost the Battle of Tannenberg in 1914 and would sign the “Treaty of Tannenberg” to end her war with Germany.

Austria-Hungary would have the Russians travel to Moravia to sign the “Treaty of Buchlau” at Buchlau Castle, the site of an earlier 1908 Austrian-Russian agreement that turned out very badly for Russia , which had involved a great loss of face for Russia.

The Ottoman Empire would have the Russian delegates journey to Constantinople to sign their peace treaty to unmistakenly underline the fact that Russia would never acquire Constantinople nor gain control of the Straits. The treaty, however, would be signed in a small village west of Constantinople called San Stefano. This “Treaty of San Stefano” would totally wipe out the memory of an earlier, temporary, also named “Treaty of San Stefano” which a victorious Russia had forced the Ottoman Empire to sign in 1878.

(3 ) FRANCE and (4) GREAT BRITAIN. The Germans would choose Belgium as the site and the name the “Treaty of Waterloo” for several reasons in order to make propaganda and good public relations.

Germany would stress that holding the peace treaty negotiations in Belgium would help to stimulate the war-torn Belgian economy to recover by servicing the various delegations. The world would also see that Belgium was once again a free nation not at the beck and call of the Germans.

Waterloo had been the 1815 site of a previous French defeat. Simultaneously, Waterloo was the site of a great British victory. And, most importantly from Germany’s viewpoint, the British and the Prussians had fought as allies, on the same side, against France in winning at Waterloo in 1815, something that the Germans would want the British to recall.

The Germans would almost do a repeat of the fairly gentle 1866 “Peace of Prague” which ended the war between the Prussians and the Austrians and enabled them to become friends and allies a few years later.

The French, on the other hand, would suffer a similar fate to the 1866 German allies of Austria. In that 1866 war there were annexations and cessions of territory mixed with some leniency for the Austrian allies of Hanover, Saxony, Bavaria, Hesse-Darmstadt, Nassau, Hesse-Kassel and a few other smaller German states.

(5 ) UNITED STATES. Even more than with Great Britain, the Germans would want a good relationship with the United States to be quickly restored. The Germans would suggest that the negotiations take place in Princeton, New Jersey, more specifically Princeton University where American President Woodrow Wilson had been a recent president of the university.

By doing this, the Germans would be flattering and appealing to Wilson’s well-known vanity to be a world peacemaker. The terms of a German-American peace treaty would be secondary and not really important in view of Germany’s long-term interests. I don’t think President Wilson could resist this call to step onto History’s stage and would heed Clio’s call.

( 6) JAPAN. The Germans, in what would be a real stroke of diplomacy which would kill many birds with only one stone, could also ask President Wilson to become the mediator for ending their war with Japan. They could even suggest the location of Portsmouth, New Hampshire where a previous American President, Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt, had chaperoned an end to the Russo-Japanese War in the 1905 “Treaty of Portsmouth” which won Roosevelt the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize.

Not only did Roosevelt and Wilson hate each other, Wilson was also very suspicious of Japan’s growing strength in Asia and in the Pacific. During the war, Japan had grabbed the German possessions of Kiautschou(AKA Kiaochou AKA Tsingtao AKA Qingdao) in China and the Pacific islands of the Marshalls, the Marianas and the Carolines.

If anyone could get their territories back for Germany, it would be President Wilson, whose country was the nominal American ally of Japan, and who would undoubtedly jump at the chance to win a Nobel Peace Prize like his great rival President Roosevelt.

It really wouldn’t matter to the Germans, since these colonies had been a money drain, but it had the great potential to cause quarrels between Wilson and the Japanese while simultaneously endearing the Germans to Wilson by letting him strut on the world stage as a peacemaker.
Good post.
 
There are varying levels of defeat. My guess is that a Versailles signing would take a defeat amounting to a French national collapse. In the end, I dont think the WWI French could be defeated to this level.
There have been less probable defeats. It doesn't require an ASB.
 
There have been less probable defeats. It doesn't require an ASB.
I am thinking that a French national collapse could in WWI could only be induced by a mobile, blitzing type ground enemy and a sea enemy capable of cutting off men and supplies from the United Kingdom.

The Miracle at the Marne and the French stand at Verdun both demonstrated that not only was French national morale intact, but that even the ubber efficient German army could not force strategic type infantry break throughs.

Battering the French army into national collapse may take some socio political additions:

- Armed, loud and proud anti colonial rebellions sweep the French and UK empires. Morrocans, Algerians, Senegalese, Malagasy and the rest of the French empire are not arriving in mainland France. Likewise, Indians, Nigerians, Ugandans, Kenyans etc will not be feeding into British expeditionary campaigns.

- Britain goes pretty darn isolationist. Only volunteers can serve in rifle Brigades on the western front- and given the death rate at the immediate front and the ability to serve in safer (well usually) expeditionary campaigns, UK volunteers for French trenches start to dry up pretty fast. The end result is much reduced direct UK contribution to France.

- Austria Hungary is stronger and though will not be transitioning to strategic offenses, can hold the line with out continuous German bail outs.

- Verdun, 1916 France stands alone against the uber efficient and reinforced Germans. Things look grim.
 
Top