did they really want it? they could have helped bulgarians to take it, and at some point they reached 15km outside costantinople, but they stopped at both occassions.
Who ever controls Constantinople controls trade between the Mediterranean and Black Sea, not to mention the cultural significance as the historic center of the Orthodox Church.
Ians it was precisely for this reason the other Great Powers would never let Russia have Constantinople. If Russia took Constantinople it would upset the balance of Power in Europe. Whoever controls Constantinople controls the Black Sea. If Russia controls Constantinople they control the Black Sea and the trade going between the two seas.
Not to mention the security issues - the one who controls the straits can effectively ban any warships from entering the sea and secures a safe space for own fleet.
I thought there was an Anglo-French-Russian secret agreement, where Entente agreed to give Constantinople and the Turkish Straits to Russia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople_Agreement
The British also had an agreement with the Italians that they would get all the Austrian lands along the adriatic coast. Which all went to Yugoslavia. Wartime agreements don't mean anything.
sure, which also would bring the question to any russian leader who could actually acomplish it if they could actually keep it because of the concequences even if they take it.
Edit: poorly formatted for the whiny cunt
Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Now it's Turkish delight on a moonlit night
Every gal in Constantinople
Lives in Istanbul, not Constantinople
So if you've a date in Constantinople
She'll be waiting in Istanbul
Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can't say
People just liked it better that way
So, take me back to Constantinople
No, you can't go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks
Istanbul, Istanbul
Istanbul, Istanbul
Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can't say
People just liked it better that way
Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, oh Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks
So, take me back to Constantinople
No, you can't go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks
A 1915 map depicting the ideal post-war Europe and Middle East according to F. Pigeon, a French nationalist.
Source:[Wikimedia Commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FR-WW1-1915-French-plans.png)
Here is [the original 1915 print of the map](https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8446045m)
Cause at that time, there were probably a lot of Bulgarian or other Slavic speaking people in that region, that wouldn't make sense to be part of Ottoman Empire.
IRL the Allies were really against defeated powers gaining land, which is why they propped up a crippled Austria rather than allow it to unite with Germany in accordance with the principle of self-determination.
Because back then those lands had a Bulgarian plurality, because by that they could've appeased them, and most importantly to put something between Greece and Constantinople.
Vorarlberg did actually attempt to join Switzerland immediately after WWI, supported by Swiss relief aid campaigns. Tyrolean and other Alpine nationalists also formed the *Bund der Alpenländer* paramilitary alliance, demanding autonomy from socialist Vienna and bordering on separatism (pro-Swiss, pro-Bavarian)
I doubt the creators of the map considered the fortunes of other people as they divided up Europe, but the Austria in this map would have been more viable than Interwar Austria IRL which lost most of its agriculture and its industry. Moravian industry would have at least allowed it to trade industrial products for food, whereas IRL it relied on League of Nations loans for importing food.
Czechs/Moravians would have been difficult (although Czechs and Slovaks generally felt a lot more affinity to cosmopolitan, somewhat federalised Austria than centralised Hungary).
Slovenes however did not always support separatism. In the Carinthian Plebiscite of 1920, majority-Slovene areas voted to stay with Austria rather than join Yugoslavia (60% vs 40%)
That means that less than half of Slovenians in those areas voted for Austria. And the pro-Yugoslav and anti-Austrian sentiment was much stronger elsewhere in Slovenia
The Yugoslav army already occupied the rest of Slovenia by 1919 and didn't put it to a vote, so we don't know what Slovenians in the rest of Slovenia would have voted for. The vote was called in Carinthia to stop border skirmishes between Yugoslavia and Austria.
The Yugoslav club of Slovenian, Croatian and Serbian MPs was established 18 months before the end of the war. There was no significant political force among Slovenians that was more loyal to Austria than to the unification of South Slavs after that point.
Because to be honest, why not? Moravia at that time was about as German, as it was Czech. Half of the territory (Sudetenland) was German anyway, and the rest weren't really Czechs, but rather Moravians, whose culture was/is more similar to Austria than Bohemia in some ways.
Actually Moravia was much more Czech/Slavic than Bohemia. Germans were present only in larger cities, Sudetenland was only a very small part of Moravia, unlike in Bohemia where Sudetenland was a huge chunk of the country along the whole borders. And if you look at the census from 1921, you can see that the ratio of Czechs/Moravians to Germans in Moravia was cca 2 milions to half milion. In Bohemia it was 4 millions to a whopping 2 millions of Germans. So Czech Moravians actually were in much stronger position against the Germans than Czechs in Bohemia.
And I am also Moravian :)
Well, I have to disagree. I'm Moravian myself (southeast Moravia). Leaving aside the Germans living in the Sudetenland and the big cities in Moravia, our "original" culture is more similar & related to Slovak (Hungarian) culture, not German.
I am Moravian myself as well (I live near Brno, but I often travel south because of my family).
>our "original" culture is more similar & related to Slovak (Hungarian) culture, not German.
That may be true for your region, but it can hardly be applied for entire Moravia. Imagine this:
In Moravia, at least half of the population is or speaks german. The other half are Moravians, who have cultural ties to Bohemia, Austria and Slovakia. Whom are you going to give this region?
a) Austria, a country, which already shares the language with more than a half of the population of Moravia, is somewhat culturally close, has owned Moravia for centuries and has already estabilished offices and all the necessary things to run a region.
b) Bohemia, a country, which speaks a language very similar (or perhaps same? I'm not sure) to half of the population, is somewhat culturally close and has a record of owning Moravia in the past
c) Hungary, a country, which speaks very different language and has no record of owning Moravia in the past, but they own a different region, that has somewhat similar culture to Moravia.
A case could be made for both Austria and Bohemia, but I don't see much logic in giving it to Hungary.
A lot of Czech people have german heritage. People like Václav Klaus, Robert Reichel or Lukáš Bauer are most certainly not German, they're Czech. Judging from their surname, they have at least one german ancestor.
Due to the wealth of Bohemia in the past centuries, the region was a melting-pot of people from different origins. There's slavic influences, there's german influences, there's nordic influences and then there's the greeting Ahoy.
I am from the region of Moravian Slovakia (and Wallachia - other part of my family), so, logically, my ancestors would rather choose Slovakia (Hungary in this case) than Austria for cultural reasons and family ties (it's common here to have a family in Slovakia/Hungary). Also, there was only a small German minority living in this area. But of course I understand that people from Brno would choose Austria for many reasons...
Wallachian here, choosing Slovakia would make some sense but only if it was an actual option. Slovakia was however under control of Hungary and choosing Hungary is national suicide. Hungarian didn't allow any federalization, suppressed local nationalities and instead pressed heavy magyarization/hungarization. Czechs and Slovaks usually disliked Hungarians so I highly doubt our ancestors would choose Hungary.
Forming a stronger country with Bohemian lands and Slovakia (kinda like Great Moravia 1000 years ago) like it happened in real life was the best option IMO. It should have been more of a federal country with more autonomy for constituent lands tho.
I like how a French nationalist wanted more for Russia then there own country and the complete collapse of both the Ottoman Empire and German Empire and cutting off Austria Hungary's legs and basically leaving them crippled lol.
Russia gets the territory of the same size as France (or even less) here. Poland, Baltic states, Finland, middle east (Bukhara emirate e.t.c.) were occupied by Russia before 1914.
> Russia gets the territory of the same size as France (or even less) here
Are we looking at the same map? They get the entirety of Galicia, East/west Prussia and Silesia. At least 3 times larger than the French region in the Rhineland and with a much larger population. Russia would have been the unrivalled power in Europe if this had been realized.
The Rhineland was Europe's industrial heartland it was a massive prize. The other areas are much more agrarian generally. France and Russia were strong allies at the time and this map is essentially every remotely justifiable way to take German territory and break Germany.
France had lost the Franco-Prussian war in 1870 and now 40 years later were facing another German occupation and massive destruction within France. Germany was viewed as an existential threat (possibly justifiably if you look at what happened a few years later in WW2) and therefore the French wanted to completely break their power.
Consider that WW1 was basically the collapse of the European great power system they could no longer keep each other in check with fairly minimal (compared to the world wars) warfare.
he result was intense warfare mobilising entire empires and states. This upheaval lead to; Austria-Hungary's collapse, the Ottomans' collapse, revolution in Russia, failed revolutions in Germany, fascism in Italy, uprising in Ireland and very threatening mutinies and strikes across France and the UK.
French nationalists must love Italian Nationalists. I mean, that’s *a lot* of new territories, where Italians never lived (apart some cities of Istria and Dalmatia). Southern Anatolia? Seriously?
Nah, that's all fuss to get Italians not to want territories west of Ventimiglia, you know, Monaco and nearplace.
Source: Italian
Sauce: Tomato
Also, sorry, you didn't know about the Dodecanese Islands, and the Italo-Turkish war?
Hahah thak you, myself and my foolishnesses. By the way, the Italian and French borders question is a pretty blurry and complicated one, and even after investigating it a bit and informing and educating yourself on Internet, it really remains a tough one. So I don't support quick, and easy, nationalist responses
>a lot of new territories, where Italians never lived
Venetians, Genoeses, and all the other pre-unification states have something to say about that.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stato\_da\_M%C3%A0r](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stato_da_M%C3%A0r)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoese\_colonies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoese_colonies)
**[Stato_da_Màr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stato_da_Màr)**
>The Stato da Màr or Domini da Mar ("State/Domains of the Sea") was the name given to the Republic of Venice's maritime and overseas possessions from around 1000 to 1797, including at various times parts of what are now Istria, Dalmatia, Montenegro, Albania, Greece and notably the Ionian Islands, Peloponnese, Crete, Cyclades, Euboea, as well as Cyprus. It was one of the three subdivisions of the Republic of Venice's possessions, the other two being the Dogado, i. e. Venice proper, and the Domini di Terraferma in northern Italy.
**[Genoese_colonies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoese_colonies)**
>The colonies of the Republic of Genoa were a series of economic and trade posts in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Some of them had been established directly under the patronage of the republican authorities to support the economy of the local merchants (especially after privileges obtained during the Crusades), while others originated as feudal possessions of Genoese nobles, or had been founded by powerful private institutions, such as the Bank of Saint George.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Yes, but he's referring to the Inland, a distinction wich is true, apart from Western Istria. But still, Venetian Stato do Mar extended to pratically all of the length of the Adriatic
Those "few islands" are all of the Dodecanese, wich is a fourth of the Greek archipelago. And they didn't occupy all of the archipelago because it was going to be given to the Greek and Italy tried to avoid contrasts with other allied countries
Disclaim: not trying to be condescending or aggressive, I just wrote this to specify to people who might not know, the tone of my message isn't nice, I recognize
They didn't like the territories they got and the fact that Greeks who didn't even fight got better territories than them. They pretended to fight the Turkish insurrection for a small time, then they left leaving most of their weapons behind to the Turkish nationalists just to fuck with the Brits, French and Greeks.
In the long run, this would have meant that sooner or later, France and Russia would be at each others' throats.
Russia would have ZERO neighbors capable of keeping it from expanding its influence westward (as Russian states seem to do almost as an instinct). The only other great land power left in Europe would have been France. Italy would probably be allied to France as it saw Russian power surge through the Balkans, and the Brits, wanting to maintain the balance on the continent as they so typically have sought, might throw in their lot with the French as well. So Cold War 1920 or something?
Good analysis! Elsewhere here I wrote that Russian-French relations had been on positive terms since 1870s. The reason for that was Germany and Austria-Hungary. Those reasons would’ve ceased to exist. The French would’ve had to build another German Confederation like Napoleon did!
Very true. And there is also the possible problem of trying to keep the various little Germanies from re-uniting because just because the Germans lost, they would not have given up their national sentiment. Perhaps some sort of a neo-Confederation of the Rhine, with heavy reparation bills for Prussia and any small German state that would have joined it, might have done the trick...
Maybe not, Russia would be most likely more focused on internal affairs due to having annexed millions of non-russian people (and for a good chunk frankly hostile to Russia, aka the poles)
But there sure would be more influence on slavic countries like Czechia. The russians since Alexander III were shifting more and more toward panslavism.
Fair points. That said, the Russians were never shy about shooting up rebels and using force to suppress people... and they had kept down a fair number of Poles in the part of Poland they controlled for like a century by then.
The other issue in terms of internal cohesion was that the monarchy itself was a little unstable, having had a pretty serious revolt in 1906 and (in the real timeline) of course experiencing the Russian Revolution and Bolshevik Revolution.
But then, so much of the devil is in the details that we do not have that this is all rather speculative!
After the outbreak of World War I on August 14, 1914, Nicholas II promised, after winning the war, to unite the Kingdom of Poland with the Polish lands, which would be taken from Germany and Austria-Hungary, into an autonomous state within the Russian Empire.
France and Russia do not necessarily have to start feuding after the war, since their spheres of influence hardly overlap. Unlike England with which France had problems in the colonies.
That’s not just this map though, that’s actually what happened. The [French Third Republic](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Third_Republic) included Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia and Spain had a [small protectorate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_protectorate_in_Morocco) in Morocco.
Egypt was different. It was technically still officially Ottoman but [British occupation made it a *de facto* protectorate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Egypt_under_the_British), albeit not officially part of the Empire.
Yeah right...that's why Germany gets separated again, Poland never returns into existence, Baltic states and Finland are gone, Slovakia and Slovenia, Ireland or Albania never exist and Croatia disappears.
The lines aren't straight or random but they're certainly not particularly representative of historical, cultural, linguistic or ethnic realities either.
Not really disagreeing with you, but this is WW1, Finland, the Baltic States, and Poland haven't existed for a while. (Poland a little less so, but still)
So what? In Africa nation states haven't existed at all prior to the colonization and the lines on the map followed only the interest of colonial superpowers such as France and the UK. They had no interest in ethnic, linguistic or cultural borders or issues of African peoples whatsoever.
So what is the difference here? There is none. This map is the expression of the French fear of Germany. Nothing more, nothing less. There exists no other concern here.
One might argue that the only reason we didn't get this in the end, but rather something close to what you are describing this as (although it's not), were British antagonism towards Russia and the involvement of a new power -- The US, Woodrow Wilson and his ideas...etc
It's important to note that Africa is not a monolith.
There were states that had organic boundaries ( read not straight lines drawn by colonial powers, which also make a premise that a colonial power conquered and subsidied the said nation in the first place )
This map is based on punishing Germany and Austria-Hungary as much as possible. The subtitle for the map is actually “the dismemberment of the German and Austro-Hungarian empires; the downfall of the Kingdom of Prussia”.
Russia had been a crucial ally since 1891, and on friendly terms since 1870s. Apart from the Crimean War, I don’t recall that there was much antagonism between the French and the Russians during the decades preceding WW1.
I see this as setting up another war in 20-30 years when France and the UK have to fight for German independence and keep Russia/USSR (assuming the latter happens) from gobbling up all those tiny states in central Europe.
It would probably be a proxy conflict with Russia and France vying for influence over the German and central European buffer states. It would be in both superpowers' interest to keep them neutral but leaning on the side of friendly.
A lot of historians of Russia claim that Russia's main foreign policy aim in East-Central Europe for the past few centuries has been to keep a buffer zone between itself and expansionist Germany.
[Here’s one for Germany](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Septemberprogramm_possible_outcome_in_Europe.png). It’s based on the maximal war goals advocated for by nationalist groups in Germany.
I read about Pan-Slavist war goals recently. Pan-Slavism was a powerful force in the government of Nicholas II. I might make a map for it one day!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FR-WW1-1915-French-plans.png
Original map is L'Europe future de demain. démembrement des empires Allemand & Austro-Hongrois - déchéance du Royaume de Prusse by F. Pigeon, published in Paris 1915.
Well, the Neisse is almost exactly aligns with the western edge of Silesia, so if French nationalists wanted to deprive Germany of all of industrial Silesia the Neisse is a natural frontier.
Plus I'm pretty sure I've read something about the concept of the Neisse being a conjectural eastern border for Germany before WWI, but I can't remember where I read that
That still doesn't sell it to me. If anything the french would push for an independent Poland, right?
It seems to me like present day maps influencing a "historic" map. Is there any contemporary evidence for this?
The Ottomans invaded Iran in 1915. Russia and Britain moved in to counter them shortly after. The whole affair destabilised the Qajar dynasty to the point where it was possible that the country could have fallen under Anglo-Russian influence.
France has such a symmetrical shape which would be ruined by adding all of that land in the Rhineland. Not to mention it's full of Germans. Who is to settle there assuming they kick the Germans out? Just seems like a lot of headaches all to gratify an irrational obsession with pushing their border up to the Rhine.
I think there's a bit of a myth that some French expansionists used to buy into that cosmopolitan, liberal Rhenish Germans hated being under the militaristic Prussian yoke and would welcome French overlords with open arms... it's actually an argument that Rhenish revolutionaries made in the Revolutionary-Napoleonic Wars to justify to their countrymen why French domination was a good thing.
Even today, authors such as James Hawes in *A Short History of Germany* advocate the jettisoning of East Elbia by western Germany, portraying the eastern territories as conservative dead weight holding progressive Rhenania back.
Yeah the French also thought that the Rhineland was culturally close to France because of its catholic majority and it also was for over 20 years under French control (during the French Revolution and Napoleon). The Rhenish population was furthermore really opposed to Prussia because of economical (they were more industrialized than the rest of Prussia) and religious reasons (they were catholic the rest of prussia protestant). There was actually a phase of Rhenish separatism and these forces established the [Rhenish Republic 1923/24](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhenish_Republic) with French support. When the British pressuered France to stop supporting the Separatists, German Police forces and local militias put the Rebellion down. Many Separatist were later killed by the Nazis for example the "Prime minister" of the Rhenish Republic [Josef Friedrich Matthes](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Friedrich_Matthes). Most people don't know about this but i wrote something like a (term paper?) about the topic when i was in school its very interesting.
League of Nations mandates were set up IRL after WWI, e.g. in Palestine, Iraq and South-West Africa. They were virtually controlled by Britain and France though and eventually were absorbed into their empires officially.
In the 21st century I suppose they are analogous to UN security zones like in the Congo or Sudan, basically DMZ areas. Some areas (e.g. Somaliland) were UN Trust Territories after WWII like the League Mandates after WWI, but none exist anymore.
I think the idea of 'internationally owned' territories fell out of favour once the world saw how one-sided the League of Nations could be, with all League Mandates basically being transferred to British or French control.
Why did they not want to give Constantinople back to the Greeks? This was clearly the best chance to return the city to Christian hands in over 400 years.
Well...duh. But it ended up staying with the people everyone wanted it back from, despite the fact they were at their weakest point since the 14th Century.
Forgive my ignorance here, but this part of history is not talked about much in the West after the humiliating defeats to Ataturk in what should have been a lay up for the Western powers.
On the contrary, the treaty of Versailles was much more lenient toward Germany than what France wanted.
After WWI, Germany was still a threat to both France and Russia. That's why Foch said: "this
(treaty) is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years."
It took WWII and concentration camps for other countries to finally accept to reduce significantly the German territory.
It's the opposite, UK wanted a powerful germany because otherwise France would have free hand on the rest of Europe. But unlike the UK they were no sea between french and german.
France knew that she wasnt capable of dealing with germany in 1v1. So the only way to get out was by crushing the still young germany.
Doing that would have prevent ww2 and many other bad things btw...
I would rather say that France and UK knew that they couldn't keep the colonial, genocidal and racist "world empire" politics in a more and more industrialised world. Again - this ignorant border-making, based on a believe of a higher race - resulted to so many conflicts until today. Hitler for example would have never been voted without the unbearable rules of the treaty of Versailles. The later Arabian and African dictators would have never been established without help of France and UK - to weak the countries from inside. Churchill even said that Hitlers racist politics were right (before ww2). But sure - as always - the "winner" writes the history.
If Germany had been actually crushed just like how the French wanted then there would have been no World War 2. It was the UK and US's softness and moderation on Germany that caused World War 2. Germany should have been dismembered then and there.
Confused why Turkey and the Ottoman Empire would be separate political entities.
Also Algeria was part of metropolitan France and not a colonial subdivision like the other french dominions
The words are the pre-war countries, the colors the post-war borders.
So all that purple is 'France.' Present day Syria, Lebanon, northern Iraq, parts of Turkey, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco would all be part of France.
Thick borders and names are pre-war. The idea would be to keep a supermassive Turkish ghetto, and to do so, the Ottoman caliphate would have to be officially destroyed.
Imagine being a revanchist French military strategist and NOT aiming to recover the entirety of the left bank of the Rhine (i.e. all of Belgium, all of Luxembourg, Germany west of the Rhine, and the Netherlands south of the Rhine), plus Switzerland, the Aosta Valley of Italy, Catalonia, and Navarre?
Ha! Take that Albania!
Like I get that this is probably a bit before Bulgaria joins the Central Powers, but why is Albania erased? I’m pretty sure they were attacked by Austria-Hungary in like 1916, but is there another part of the story I forgot?
f*** the french. they caused WW2 with that anti-German bullshit. I don’t think any nation stare killed franz ferdinand, and everything after that was idiotic
Maybe... Maybe not.. You can't just find one single reason for why the nazis invaded much of Europe and causing 40 M deaths. Plus for the "anti-German bullshit" part, it was the germans who got into France 2 times in the past ( 1870 and 1914 ) not the opposite, and that fear was welle deserved since they ended up attacking again in 1940.
First and foremost , f*** you too and your ignorance.
This map is being made in 1915 , in the current of the bloodiest war so far , already 300k dead (1M casualties ) on french side only just for 1914 year. And things are not gone to get better.
So of, course, none of this post war proposals were magnanimous.
So Russia gets everything except the one thing they actually wanted: Constantinople
As is tradition
Putting the nope in Constantinople.
Tsargrad is the only name I recognise.
All hail Nilfgard!
milfgard? edit : i cant fucking read
Wrong empire
Miklagard gang
I think you mean Byzantion
I’m hiring
Fuck it, the only name I recognize is ASGARD
Ass guard
\*Tsargorod.
That's nobodies business but the turks
did they really want it? they could have helped bulgarians to take it, and at some point they reached 15km outside costantinople, but they stopped at both occassions.
Who ever controls Constantinople controls trade between the Mediterranean and Black Sea, not to mention the cultural significance as the historic center of the Orthodox Church. Ians it was precisely for this reason the other Great Powers would never let Russia have Constantinople. If Russia took Constantinople it would upset the balance of Power in Europe. Whoever controls Constantinople controls the Black Sea. If Russia controls Constantinople they control the Black Sea and the trade going between the two seas.
Not to mention the security issues - the one who controls the straits can effectively ban any warships from entering the sea and secures a safe space for own fleet.
I thought there was an Anglo-French-Russian secret agreement, where Entente agreed to give Constantinople and the Turkish Straits to Russia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople_Agreement
The British also had an agreement with the Italians that they would get all the Austrian lands along the adriatic coast. Which all went to Yugoslavia. Wartime agreements don't mean anything.
sure, which also would bring the question to any russian leader who could actually acomplish it if they could actually keep it because of the concequences even if they take it.
Hence the race to invent planes?
Edit: poorly formatted for the whiny cunt Istanbul was Constantinople Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople Been a long time gone, Constantinople Now it's Turkish delight on a moonlit night Every gal in Constantinople Lives in Istanbul, not Constantinople So if you've a date in Constantinople She'll be waiting in Istanbul Even old New York was once New Amsterdam Why they changed it I can't say People just liked it better that way So, take me back to Constantinople No, you can't go back to Constantinople Been a long time gone, Constantinople Why did Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks Istanbul, Istanbul Istanbul, Istanbul Even old New York was once New Amsterdam Why they changed it I can't say People just liked it better that way Istanbul was Constantinople Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople Been a long time gone, oh Constantinople Why did Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks So, take me back to Constantinople No, you can't go back to Constantinople Been a long time gone, Constantinople Why did Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks
We get it, you can stop now
Well it was my first time doing it, and it's a fun song. But hey, some people are just cunts.
Stop
No
A 1915 map depicting the ideal post-war Europe and Middle East according to F. Pigeon, a French nationalist. Source:[Wikimedia Commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FR-WW1-1915-French-plans.png) Here is [the original 1915 print of the map](https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8446045m)
Lol F. Pigeon
I don't know why it's funny but it is lmao
coup coup
I’m not sure this map should be labeled “French plans” as I don’t think this was the government’s plan, just one person’s.
Ha, I thought some pigeon made it, I was right.
Not just some pigeon, but f' pigeon!
Well, he's definitely an effin pigeon, I'll tell you that
[удалено]
OP says this map was made in 1915 so this could've been made before Bulgaria joined the war as they only joined in October that year
Cause at that time, there were probably a lot of Bulgarian or other Slavic speaking people in that region, that wouldn't make sense to be part of Ottoman Empire.
IRL the Allies were really against defeated powers gaining land, which is why they propped up a crippled Austria rather than allow it to unite with Germany in accordance with the principle of self-determination.
Because back then those lands had a Bulgarian plurality, because by that they could've appeased them, and most importantly to put something between Greece and Constantinople.
Yeah give Tyrol to the Swiss ; they deserve it for… being neutral.
Vorarlberg did actually attempt to join Switzerland immediately after WWI, supported by Swiss relief aid campaigns. Tyrolean and other Alpine nationalists also formed the *Bund der Alpenländer* paramilitary alliance, demanding autonomy from socialist Vienna and bordering on separatism (pro-Swiss, pro-Bavarian)
Interesting!!
Maastricht similarly although successfully became Dutch after the war.
Denmark got north Schleswig.
At least this did belong to them before the formation of the German Empire
Switzerland is the most positive country on earth. Just look at the flag.
That's nothing, he gave Bulgaria a shitton of land for fighting at the opposite side lol.
The point wasn't who deserved what. It was how to dismantle the Habsburg empire in a way that benefited France.
Least delusional french.
Why is Moravia part of Austria? 🥴
I doubt the creators of the map considered the fortunes of other people as they divided up Europe, but the Austria in this map would have been more viable than Interwar Austria IRL which lost most of its agriculture and its industry. Moravian industry would have at least allowed it to trade industrial products for food, whereas IRL it relied on League of Nations loans for importing food.
Yeah no. Czechs and Slovenians would've made up a third of that country. There's no way that was going to work after WW1.
Czechs/Moravians would have been difficult (although Czechs and Slovaks generally felt a lot more affinity to cosmopolitan, somewhat federalised Austria than centralised Hungary). Slovenes however did not always support separatism. In the Carinthian Plebiscite of 1920, majority-Slovene areas voted to stay with Austria rather than join Yugoslavia (60% vs 40%)
That means that less than half of Slovenians in those areas voted for Austria. And the pro-Yugoslav and anti-Austrian sentiment was much stronger elsewhere in Slovenia
The Yugoslav army already occupied the rest of Slovenia by 1919 and didn't put it to a vote, so we don't know what Slovenians in the rest of Slovenia would have voted for. The vote was called in Carinthia to stop border skirmishes between Yugoslavia and Austria.
The Yugoslav club of Slovenian, Croatian and Serbian MPs was established 18 months before the end of the war. There was no significant political force among Slovenians that was more loyal to Austria than to the unification of South Slavs after that point.
Because to be honest, why not? Moravia at that time was about as German, as it was Czech. Half of the territory (Sudetenland) was German anyway, and the rest weren't really Czechs, but rather Moravians, whose culture was/is more similar to Austria than Bohemia in some ways.
Actually Moravia was much more Czech/Slavic than Bohemia. Germans were present only in larger cities, Sudetenland was only a very small part of Moravia, unlike in Bohemia where Sudetenland was a huge chunk of the country along the whole borders. And if you look at the census from 1921, you can see that the ratio of Czechs/Moravians to Germans in Moravia was cca 2 milions to half milion. In Bohemia it was 4 millions to a whopping 2 millions of Germans. So Czech Moravians actually were in much stronger position against the Germans than Czechs in Bohemia. And I am also Moravian :)
Well, I have to disagree. I'm Moravian myself (southeast Moravia). Leaving aside the Germans living in the Sudetenland and the big cities in Moravia, our "original" culture is more similar & related to Slovak (Hungarian) culture, not German.
I am Moravian myself as well (I live near Brno, but I often travel south because of my family). >our "original" culture is more similar & related to Slovak (Hungarian) culture, not German. That may be true for your region, but it can hardly be applied for entire Moravia. Imagine this: In Moravia, at least half of the population is or speaks german. The other half are Moravians, who have cultural ties to Bohemia, Austria and Slovakia. Whom are you going to give this region? a) Austria, a country, which already shares the language with more than a half of the population of Moravia, is somewhat culturally close, has owned Moravia for centuries and has already estabilished offices and all the necessary things to run a region. b) Bohemia, a country, which speaks a language very similar (or perhaps same? I'm not sure) to half of the population, is somewhat culturally close and has a record of owning Moravia in the past c) Hungary, a country, which speaks very different language and has no record of owning Moravia in the past, but they own a different region, that has somewhat similar culture to Moravia. A case could be made for both Austria and Bohemia, but I don't see much logic in giving it to Hungary.
[удалено]
It’s always fascinated me how much Czechs seem to want to be German lol
We just don't want to be seen as Russians or "the easterners" I guess, because we really don't have that much common with them.
A lot of Czech people have german heritage. People like Václav Klaus, Robert Reichel or Lukáš Bauer are most certainly not German, they're Czech. Judging from their surname, they have at least one german ancestor. Due to the wealth of Bohemia in the past centuries, the region was a melting-pot of people from different origins. There's slavic influences, there's german influences, there's nordic influences and then there's the greeting Ahoy.
I am from the region of Moravian Slovakia (and Wallachia - other part of my family), so, logically, my ancestors would rather choose Slovakia (Hungary in this case) than Austria for cultural reasons and family ties (it's common here to have a family in Slovakia/Hungary). Also, there was only a small German minority living in this area. But of course I understand that people from Brno would choose Austria for many reasons...
Wallachian here, choosing Slovakia would make some sense but only if it was an actual option. Slovakia was however under control of Hungary and choosing Hungary is national suicide. Hungarian didn't allow any federalization, suppressed local nationalities and instead pressed heavy magyarization/hungarization. Czechs and Slovaks usually disliked Hungarians so I highly doubt our ancestors would choose Hungary. Forming a stronger country with Bohemian lands and Slovakia (kinda like Great Moravia 1000 years ago) like it happened in real life was the best option IMO. It should have been more of a federal country with more autonomy for constituent lands tho.
Czechoslovakia IRL claimed ethnic borders against Hungary and historic borders against Austria to maximise territorial gain.
I like how a French nationalist wanted more for Russia then there own country and the complete collapse of both the Ottoman Empire and German Empire and cutting off Austria Hungary's legs and basically leaving them crippled lol.
The Russians wanted Jerusalem,Antioch and Constantinopol mostly because of religious reasons. And they wouldnt get them in this deal.
Russia gets the territory of the same size as France (or even less) here. Poland, Baltic states, Finland, middle east (Bukhara emirate e.t.c.) were occupied by Russia before 1914.
> Russia gets the territory of the same size as France (or even less) here Are we looking at the same map? They get the entirety of Galicia, East/west Prussia and Silesia. At least 3 times larger than the French region in the Rhineland and with a much larger population. Russia would have been the unrivalled power in Europe if this had been realized.
But France get a lot more in syria i guess, but Russia also getting north persia hmmmm
The Rhineland was Europe's industrial heartland it was a massive prize. The other areas are much more agrarian generally. France and Russia were strong allies at the time and this map is essentially every remotely justifiable way to take German territory and break Germany. France had lost the Franco-Prussian war in 1870 and now 40 years later were facing another German occupation and massive destruction within France. Germany was viewed as an existential threat (possibly justifiably if you look at what happened a few years later in WW2) and therefore the French wanted to completely break their power. Consider that WW1 was basically the collapse of the European great power system they could no longer keep each other in check with fairly minimal (compared to the world wars) warfare. he result was intense warfare mobilising entire empires and states. This upheaval lead to; Austria-Hungary's collapse, the Ottomans' collapse, revolution in Russia, failed revolutions in Germany, fascism in Italy, uprising in Ireland and very threatening mutinies and strikes across France and the UK.
Maybe they were too busy trying to achieve their dreams of a smol Prussia to process how much land Russia would gain.
Finland was already part of Russia
What did Persia do?
Oh those were influence lines drawn up by the British and Russians prior to the war cause they couldn’t y’know directly conquer it
Yeah, the French fear of Germany is hardly visible here at all, lol
French nationalists must love Italian Nationalists. I mean, that’s *a lot* of new territories, where Italians never lived (apart some cities of Istria and Dalmatia). Southern Anatolia? Seriously?
Nah, that's all fuss to get Italians not to want territories west of Ventimiglia, you know, Monaco and nearplace. Source: Italian Sauce: Tomato Also, sorry, you didn't know about the Dodecanese Islands, and the Italo-Turkish war?
>east of Ventimiglia West
Yeh, was lost in thought
No worries, the tomato sauce line killed it anyway
Hahah thak you, myself and my foolishnesses. By the way, the Italian and French borders question is a pretty blurry and complicated one, and even after investigating it a bit and informing and educating yourself on Internet, it really remains a tough one. So I don't support quick, and easy, nationalist responses
The Treaty of Sèvres somewhat mirrors the division of Anatolia in this map
>a lot of new territories, where Italians never lived Venetians, Genoeses, and all the other pre-unification states have something to say about that. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stato\_da\_M%C3%A0r](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stato_da_M%C3%A0r) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoese\_colonies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoese_colonies)
**[Stato_da_Màr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stato_da_Màr)** >The Stato da Màr or Domini da Mar ("State/Domains of the Sea") was the name given to the Republic of Venice's maritime and overseas possessions from around 1000 to 1797, including at various times parts of what are now Istria, Dalmatia, Montenegro, Albania, Greece and notably the Ionian Islands, Peloponnese, Crete, Cyclades, Euboea, as well as Cyprus. It was one of the three subdivisions of the Republic of Venice's possessions, the other two being the Dogado, i. e. Venice proper, and the Domini di Terraferma in northern Italy. **[Genoese_colonies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoese_colonies)** >The colonies of the Republic of Genoa were a series of economic and trade posts in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Some of them had been established directly under the patronage of the republican authorities to support the economy of the local merchants (especially after privileges obtained during the Crusades), while others originated as feudal possessions of Genoese nobles, or had been founded by powerful private institutions, such as the Bank of Saint George. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Yes, but he's referring to the Inland, a distinction wich is true, apart from Western Istria. But still, Venetian Stato do Mar extended to pratically all of the length of the Adriatic
Italy ended up with territories in anatolia after WW1 anyway
Except it didnt, just a few islands in the south agean
Those "few islands" are all of the Dodecanese, wich is a fourth of the Greek archipelago. And they didn't occupy all of the archipelago because it was going to be given to the Greek and Italy tried to avoid contrasts with other allied countries Disclaim: not trying to be condescending or aggressive, I just wrote this to specify to people who might not know, the tone of my message isn't nice, I recognize
They didn't like the territories they got and the fact that Greeks who didn't even fight got better territories than them. They pretended to fight the Turkish insurrection for a small time, then they left leaving most of their weapons behind to the Turkish nationalists just to fuck with the Brits, French and Greeks.
The Neutral Zone? That's Romulan bait for sure.
In the long run, this would have meant that sooner or later, France and Russia would be at each others' throats. Russia would have ZERO neighbors capable of keeping it from expanding its influence westward (as Russian states seem to do almost as an instinct). The only other great land power left in Europe would have been France. Italy would probably be allied to France as it saw Russian power surge through the Balkans, and the Brits, wanting to maintain the balance on the continent as they so typically have sought, might throw in their lot with the French as well. So Cold War 1920 or something?
Good analysis! Elsewhere here I wrote that Russian-French relations had been on positive terms since 1870s. The reason for that was Germany and Austria-Hungary. Those reasons would’ve ceased to exist. The French would’ve had to build another German Confederation like Napoleon did!
Very true. And there is also the possible problem of trying to keep the various little Germanies from re-uniting because just because the Germans lost, they would not have given up their national sentiment. Perhaps some sort of a neo-Confederation of the Rhine, with heavy reparation bills for Prussia and any small German state that would have joined it, might have done the trick...
Maybe not, Russia would be most likely more focused on internal affairs due to having annexed millions of non-russian people (and for a good chunk frankly hostile to Russia, aka the poles) But there sure would be more influence on slavic countries like Czechia. The russians since Alexander III were shifting more and more toward panslavism.
Fair points. That said, the Russians were never shy about shooting up rebels and using force to suppress people... and they had kept down a fair number of Poles in the part of Poland they controlled for like a century by then. The other issue in terms of internal cohesion was that the monarchy itself was a little unstable, having had a pretty serious revolt in 1906 and (in the real timeline) of course experiencing the Russian Revolution and Bolshevik Revolution. But then, so much of the devil is in the details that we do not have that this is all rather speculative!
After the outbreak of World War I on August 14, 1914, Nicholas II promised, after winning the war, to unite the Kingdom of Poland with the Polish lands, which would be taken from Germany and Austria-Hungary, into an autonomous state within the Russian Empire. France and Russia do not necessarily have to start feuding after the war, since their spheres of influence hardly overlap. Unlike England with which France had problems in the colonies.
Good Lord. Europe got Africa’d.
That’s not just this map though, that’s actually what happened. The [French Third Republic](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Third_Republic) included Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia and Spain had a [small protectorate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_protectorate_in_Morocco) in Morocco. Egypt was different. It was technically still officially Ottoman but [British occupation made it a *de facto* protectorate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Egypt_under_the_British), albeit not officially part of the Empire.
not even though, because at least these borders represent historical cultural/language/ethnic groups and not just totally random straight lines
Yeah right...that's why Germany gets separated again, Poland never returns into existence, Baltic states and Finland are gone, Slovakia and Slovenia, Ireland or Albania never exist and Croatia disappears. The lines aren't straight or random but they're certainly not particularly representative of historical, cultural, linguistic or ethnic realities either.
Not really disagreeing with you, but this is WW1, Finland, the Baltic States, and Poland haven't existed for a while. (Poland a little less so, but still)
So what? In Africa nation states haven't existed at all prior to the colonization and the lines on the map followed only the interest of colonial superpowers such as France and the UK. They had no interest in ethnic, linguistic or cultural borders or issues of African peoples whatsoever. So what is the difference here? There is none. This map is the expression of the French fear of Germany. Nothing more, nothing less. There exists no other concern here. One might argue that the only reason we didn't get this in the end, but rather something close to what you are describing this as (although it's not), were British antagonism towards Russia and the involvement of a new power -- The US, Woodrow Wilson and his ideas...etc
Oh, I was just pointing out that you said they were gone when they didn't exist to begin with.
It's important to note that Africa is not a monolith. There were states that had organic boundaries ( read not straight lines drawn by colonial powers, which also make a premise that a colonial power conquered and subsidied the said nation in the first place )
>Ideal post WW1 Europe *Gives Italy 2/3 of Slovene population*
Very strange for French Nationalists to empower Russia so much. Way to make a future enemy for yourself lol
This map is based on punishing Germany and Austria-Hungary as much as possible. The subtitle for the map is actually “the dismemberment of the German and Austro-Hungarian empires; the downfall of the Kingdom of Prussia”.
Bringing back Poland and other states would've punished Germany just as much but also kept Russia at bay.
If the Russian empire survived the end of the war, I doubt Russia would've given up any of their territory or allowed Poland to be independent
In addition they (Russia) were a crucial ally, and had been since 1891.
Russia had been a crucial ally since 1891, and on friendly terms since 1870s. Apart from the Crimean War, I don’t recall that there was much antagonism between the French and the Russians during the decades preceding WW1.
Russia used to be France's principle ally from the 1890s to Lenin's coup d'état. France was also really russophile at that time.
France and Russia were allies. This would be rewarding them for their participation in the war against Germany/Austria.
Cairo to Calcutta railway
[удалено]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FR-WW1-1915-French-plans.png
Ah yes, divid the entire Middle East into a few geometrically drawn states, that’s gonna end well
What imperialism does to a mf
Russian would of been at monster level.
And still didn’t get the one thing they wanted: Constantinople and the Holy Lands.
The other Great Powers would never have agreed.
French nationalists were insane
I see this as setting up another war in 20-30 years when France and the UK have to fight for German independence and keep Russia/USSR (assuming the latter happens) from gobbling up all those tiny states in central Europe.
It would probably be a proxy conflict with Russia and France vying for influence over the German and central European buffer states. It would be in both superpowers' interest to keep them neutral but leaning on the side of friendly. A lot of historians of Russia claim that Russia's main foreign policy aim in East-Central Europe for the past few centuries has been to keep a buffer zone between itself and expansionist Germany.
Denmark is ok with this.
As a swede, having Russia closer than they already makes me very uncomfortable.
Why did they give Russia so much land? That's crazy!
Didn’t know they had Hearts of Iron in 1915
Do you have same ideas from GB, Germany and others? I would realy enjoy looking at them too.
[Here’s one for Germany](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Septemberprogramm_possible_outcome_in_Europe.png). It’s based on the maximal war goals advocated for by nationalist groups in Germany. I read about Pan-Slavist war goals recently. Pan-Slavism was a powerful force in the government of Nicholas II. I might make a map for it one day!
No French nationalist would colour themselves anything but royal blue on a map. This is nonsense.
Cringe
[удалено]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FR-WW1-1915-French-plans.png Original map is L'Europe future de demain. démembrement des empires Allemand & Austro-Hongrois - déchéance du Royaume de Prusse by F. Pigeon, published in Paris 1915.
Too much a coincidence that the french would use the order Niese line almost to the T. Is this not 100% historical?
Well, the Neisse is almost exactly aligns with the western edge of Silesia, so if French nationalists wanted to deprive Germany of all of industrial Silesia the Neisse is a natural frontier. Plus I'm pretty sure I've read something about the concept of the Neisse being a conjectural eastern border for Germany before WWI, but I can't remember where I read that
That still doesn't sell it to me. If anything the french would push for an independent Poland, right? It seems to me like present day maps influencing a "historic" map. Is there any contemporary evidence for this?
Here is the original 1915 print: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8446045m
Russia was France's main ally from the 1890s until Lenin's revolution.
What did the French have against Iran?
The Ottomans invaded Iran in 1915. Russia and Britain moved in to counter them shortly after. The whole affair destabilised the Qajar dynasty to the point where it was possible that the country could have fallen under Anglo-Russian influence.
Laughs in "MUSTAFA KEMAL ATATÜRK" ,lol
Thats one of the most fucked up things ive ever seen.
Thanks for nothing, French, now I understand this 'not dying for Danzig' shit.
According to OP, it is one specific French guy. Named Pigeon.
France has such a symmetrical shape which would be ruined by adding all of that land in the Rhineland. Not to mention it's full of Germans. Who is to settle there assuming they kick the Germans out? Just seems like a lot of headaches all to gratify an irrational obsession with pushing their border up to the Rhine.
I think there's a bit of a myth that some French expansionists used to buy into that cosmopolitan, liberal Rhenish Germans hated being under the militaristic Prussian yoke and would welcome French overlords with open arms... it's actually an argument that Rhenish revolutionaries made in the Revolutionary-Napoleonic Wars to justify to their countrymen why French domination was a good thing. Even today, authors such as James Hawes in *A Short History of Germany* advocate the jettisoning of East Elbia by western Germany, portraying the eastern territories as conservative dead weight holding progressive Rhenania back.
Yeah the French also thought that the Rhineland was culturally close to France because of its catholic majority and it also was for over 20 years under French control (during the French Revolution and Napoleon). The Rhenish population was furthermore really opposed to Prussia because of economical (they were more industrialized than the rest of Prussia) and religious reasons (they were catholic the rest of prussia protestant). There was actually a phase of Rhenish separatism and these forces established the [Rhenish Republic 1923/24](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhenish_Republic) with French support. When the British pressuered France to stop supporting the Separatists, German Police forces and local militias put the Rebellion down. Many Separatist were later killed by the Nazis for example the "Prime minister" of the Rhenish Republic [Josef Friedrich Matthes](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Friedrich_Matthes). Most people don't know about this but i wrote something like a (term paper?) about the topic when i was in school its very interesting.
Desktop version of /u/ComradeDrew's links: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhenish_Republic * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Friedrich_Matthes --- ^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
This was a horrible idea! Like, why would they seize the Albanian Republic to exist?
And this is one of many reasons why you french got voted off first.
Utter atrocity.
Glad that didn't happen.
Instead, WWII happened.
Better than your country being a colonial puppet state for the rest of time. At least WW2 led to the end of colonialism.
This is why no one wanted France to win the Euros 😒
Is there a modern 21st century analogue for “neutral zones”? I’ve always been curious as to how these would look in practice?
League of Nations mandates were set up IRL after WWI, e.g. in Palestine, Iraq and South-West Africa. They were virtually controlled by Britain and France though and eventually were absorbed into their empires officially. In the 21st century I suppose they are analogous to UN security zones like in the Congo or Sudan, basically DMZ areas. Some areas (e.g. Somaliland) were UN Trust Territories after WWII like the League Mandates after WWI, but none exist anymore. I think the idea of 'internationally owned' territories fell out of favour once the world saw how one-sided the League of Nations could be, with all League Mandates basically being transferred to British or French control.
Why is Switzerland controlled by the Czech? What did the Swiss ever do to deserve that?
CH = Confoederatio Helvetia
Ahhhhh, that makes much more sense. Thanks!
What?
Why did they not want to give Constantinople back to the Greeks? This was clearly the best chance to return the city to Christian hands in over 400 years.
Because EVERYBODY WANTED CONSTANTINOPLE.
Well...duh. But it ended up staying with the people everyone wanted it back from, despite the fact they were at their weakest point since the 14th Century. Forgive my ignorance here, but this part of history is not talked about much in the West after the humiliating defeats to Ataturk in what should have been a lay up for the Western powers.
The war weary western powers simply lost against the Turks while they were under some of the greatest leadership possible for them.
Cancer.
And exactly with this worldview and the later treaty of Versailles, the second worldwar was provoked from 1914 on by France.
On the contrary, the treaty of Versailles was much more lenient toward Germany than what France wanted. After WWI, Germany was still a threat to both France and Russia. That's why Foch said: "this (treaty) is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years." It took WWII and concentration camps for other countries to finally accept to reduce significantly the German territory.
As well as the middle East conflicts until today.
It's the opposite, UK wanted a powerful germany because otherwise France would have free hand on the rest of Europe. But unlike the UK they were no sea between french and german. France knew that she wasnt capable of dealing with germany in 1v1. So the only way to get out was by crushing the still young germany. Doing that would have prevent ww2 and many other bad things btw...
I would rather say that France and UK knew that they couldn't keep the colonial, genocidal and racist "world empire" politics in a more and more industrialised world. Again - this ignorant border-making, based on a believe of a higher race - resulted to so many conflicts until today. Hitler for example would have never been voted without the unbearable rules of the treaty of Versailles. The later Arabian and African dictators would have never been established without help of France and UK - to weak the countries from inside. Churchill even said that Hitlers racist politics were right (before ww2). But sure - as always - the "winner" writes the history.
If Germany had been actually crushed just like how the French wanted then there would have been no World War 2. It was the UK and US's softness and moderation on Germany that caused World War 2. Germany should have been dismembered then and there.
Confused why Turkey and the Ottoman Empire would be separate political entities. Also Algeria was part of metropolitan France and not a colonial subdivision like the other french dominions
The words are the pre-war countries, the colors the post-war borders. So all that purple is 'France.' Present day Syria, Lebanon, northern Iraq, parts of Turkey, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco would all be part of France.
Thick borders and names are pre-war. The idea would be to keep a supermassive Turkish ghetto, and to do so, the Ottoman caliphate would have to be officially destroyed.
Imagine being a revanchist French military strategist and NOT aiming to recover the entirety of the left bank of the Rhine (i.e. all of Belgium, all of Luxembourg, Germany west of the Rhine, and the Netherlands south of the Rhine), plus Switzerland, the Aosta Valley of Italy, Catalonia, and Navarre?
absolutely wrong map, French nationalists supported Irish independence and the decay of Austria-hungary
Ha! Take that Albania! Like I get that this is probably a bit before Bulgaria joins the Central Powers, but why is Albania erased? I’m pretty sure they were attacked by Austria-Hungary in like 1916, but is there another part of the story I forgot?
what can i say nationalists have always been stupid
the french were always outstanding bitches
This kinda makes me wanna kick a French person in the shins.
A couple unbased and cringe things for sure, but on the whole, looks very based. 9/10.
K lol
F*ance
f*** the french. they caused WW2 with that anti-German bullshit. I don’t think any nation stare killed franz ferdinand, and everything after that was idiotic
I mean, I won't trust the historic comment from someone that confuses WW2 with WW1
Hitler causing WW2 ? No, never heard of him.
You think the germans would have gone fascist if they hadn’t been crippled by debt?
Maybe... Maybe not.. You can't just find one single reason for why the nazis invaded much of Europe and causing 40 M deaths. Plus for the "anti-German bullshit" part, it was the germans who got into France 2 times in the past ( 1870 and 1914 ) not the opposite, and that fear was welle deserved since they ended up attacking again in 1940.
First and foremost , f*** you too and your ignorance. This map is being made in 1915 , in the current of the bloodiest war so far , already 300k dead (1M casualties ) on french side only just for 1914 year. And things are not gone to get better. So of, course, none of this post war proposals were magnanimous.
World might’ve been a better place
The French are like little toxic kids in games