WesWorld

The link in my first post in this topic, post near the top of the topic, is to the full text of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles - it's a big one. A very big one. From this can be read, for instance, in Part 8: Articles 231-247: Reparations:

Quoted

ARTICLE 235.

In order to enable the Allied and Associated Powers to proceed at once to the restoration of their industrial and economic life, pending the full determination of their claims, Germany shall pay in such installments and in such manner (whether in gold, commodities, ships, securities or otherwise) as the Reparation Commission may fix, during 1919, 1920 and the first four months Of 1921 , the equivalent of 20,000,000,000 gold marks.

Clickable Table of Contents for the 1919 Treaty of Versailles:

1. Articles 1-26 The Covenant of the League of Nations
   
2. Articles 27-30 Boundaries of Germany
   
3. Articles 31-117 Political Clauses for Europe
   
4. Articles 118-158 German Rights and Interests Outside Germany
   
5. Articles 159-213 Military, Naval and Air Clauses
   
6. Articles 214-226 Prisoners of War and Graves
   
7. Articles 227-230 Penalties
   
8. Articles 231-247 Reparations
   
9. Articles 248-263 Financial Clauses
   
10. Articles 264-312 Economic Clauses
    
11. Articles 313-320 Aerial Navigation
    
12. Articles 321-386 Ports, Waterways and Railways
    
13. Articles 387-399 Labour
    
14. Articles 400-427 Procedure
    
15. Articles 428-433 Guarantees
    
16. Articles 434-440 Miscellaneous Provisions
    [/list=1]

Quoted

In addition the italians later obtained Pillau and Strassburg and renamed them Bari and Taranto, does Italy retain these ships in the wesworld? I also can't seem to find the list of names of actual ships in the german navy.

I hope i get to keep them. There is also Ancona. I think the restrictions on Germany's light combatants should be more relaxed than historical. More corvettes and patrol vessels cannot really damage anyone drastically.


BTW, does Italy get to keep Tegetthoff now? or just until 1924?

In this timeline, did Italy blow up Viribus Unitis after she was taken over by the Yugoslavs?

Nordmark is, for the record, deeply skeptical towards allowing Germany fast attack-craft; Nordmark is fully aware of what Italy did to Szent Istvan - if allowed, they would have to be included in the total quota of torpedoboats of up to 200 tons otherwise allowed Germany. Nordmark is also strictly opposed to allowing Germany minelayers.

I propose that tonnage-limit for destroyers is set to 1000 tons rather than 800 tons, to reflect the milder terms in the present VT. I think that it is uncharacteristic of Russia to advocate that Germany is fully relieved of paying reparations (and Nordmark would never agree), though a relaxation of the sum required may be more in character - for instance including a reduction of the 20 billions marks gold payable immediately, with anything paid in excess beyond whatever the new level is set at being deducted from other reparations.

Italy did keep its two former German cruisers which served in WW2, both being damaged in bombing raids repeatedly with Taranto being sunk and Bari being scuttled.
Atlantis would also be against fast attack craft armed with torpedos and mine layers but not patrol craft, sub chasers or mine sweepers. Atlantis also feels that the 20,000,000,000 reparations fee to be quite steep as germanys military is already greatly restricted.

The way I read the treaty-text was that the 20,000,000,000 marks gold was just the fee that had to be paid by the end of April 1921. Then there's the other stuff, such as repayment for all the warloands taken up by Belgium with 5% interest pa, and so on and so on.

My understanding from the "New Player" thread was that destroyer size was capped at 1500 tons. I thought we had also resolved the fate of all significant German units at that time.

Knowing nothing about the Baltic or North Sea, do motor torpedo boats have the range and sturdiness necessary to cross over and bother Nordmark?

There are another two payments of 40,000,000,000 marks (yes, eighty billion marks) due, plus the application of industry to rebuild other countries, plus the cost of paying to be occupied, plus the loss of a lot of prime industrial real estate. It's no wonder the country's economy imploded.

I'm guessing that Germany and Russia's separate peace agreement in 1917 could well have been much more favorable to the Russians. Russia was in a stronger position than historical, and the German situation was that much more desperate - the historical allies have been joined by Atlantis, Nordmark, and South Africa. That may be a part of the reason that Russia's being a bit generous.

The other part may simply reflect the different approach to risk management. Is a moderately armed, economically solid, neutral Germany less or more of a risk than a poorly armed, economically ruined, and hostile Germany? Russia seems to be more comfortable with the former; Nordmark appears to prefer the latter.

J

Iberia distinctly prefers the former - I am just not sure how aware people of the idea goodwill might actually help contain Germany better than suppression...

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
My understanding from the "New Player" thread was that destroyer size was capped at 1500 tons. I thought we had also resolved the fate of all significant German units at that time.

Then I misremembered. Anyway, what Nordmark would want to see regard fast attack craft is as follows. There should be a numerical cap on torpedoboats, which are defined as torpedocarrying vessels other than capital ships, cruisers, and destroyers - tentatively set the limit that there shall be no more torpedoboats than the maximum number of destroyers. There should also be a tonnage-limit - in historical VT this is set at 200 tons - setting it at 250-300 tons should be suitable here. Other vessels should not be permitted torpedoes nor a speed higher than 20 knots. No vessel should be fitted for, or be prepared to be fitted for, minelaying. That would be Nordmark's position on these specific matters in the hammering out of the VT.

Quoted

Knowing nothing about the Baltic or North Sea, do motor torpedo boats have the range and sturdiness necessary to cross over and bother Nordmark?

The North Sea is out of reach, but Skagerrak and Kattegat are very much at risk, and in summer the Baltic is a credible area of operations. Nordmark noticed how a single Italian FAC sank an Austro-Hungarian battleship. Incidentally, I presume we can assume that Austria-Hungary is dismembered as historical in WesWorld?

Quoted

The other part may simply reflect the different approach to risk management. Is a moderately armed, economically solid, neutral Germany less or more of a risk than a poorly armed, economically ruined, and hostile Germany? Russia seems to be more comfortable with the former; Nordmark appears to prefer the latter.

Strictly speaking, Nordmark is not alien to the former - as long as Germany doesn't start playing along the lines Italy and Austria-hungary did in the Adriatic. Russia would be interested in this, as well. Keeping Germany away from submarines, minelayers, and light forces with torpedoes will make it more possible to actually use one's navies in the Baltic. By allowing torpedoboats, but making them rather large, so they are too large to serve as FAC but too small in any other role, and by imposing a limit on how many Germany can have, one will hope to keep the Baltic a safe place in the next war.

From Peng's post:

Quoted

I think that it is uncharacteristic of Russia to advocate that Germany is fully relieved of paying reparations

Well, President Kerensky does confess an ulterior motive. First, he is owed no reparations from Germany. Secondly, along with the separate peace, he repudiated Russia's war debts. Prewar railroad loans, mostly held by French investors, are being serviced, and French enterprises haven't been nationalized to any great degree, but apart from France he's still very much on the outs with the international financial community. He is a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, after all, so there's also some ideological affinity with Ebert and the SDP. That colors his view a bit.

But he is also very careful of the British and Americans in matters of war and peace. He knows they're quite irritated with him.

Quoted

and Nordmark would never agree

Hm. Russo-German relations are looking better every day.

From Rock Doctor's post:

Quoted

I'm guessing that Germany and Russia's separate peace agreement in 1917 could well have been much more favorable to the Russians.

I didn't really consider this. I took the March 1917 front lines, gave up Riga and a bit more to get a quick peace, and left it at that.

Quoted

The other part may simply reflect the different approach to risk management. Is a moderately armed, economically solid, neutral Germany less or more of a risk than a poorly armed, economically ruined, and hostile Germany?

There's a bit of that.

From LordArpad's post:

Quoted

I am just not sure how aware people of the idea goodwill might actually help contain Germany better than suppression

Keynes, Nicholson, and Smuts seemed to be at the time.

Perhaps we need to go as far as to define the actual events of an alternate WW1 senario with Atlantis, Nordmark and the South African Empire all against Germany, but with a weaker Britain and a Russia that exited the war slightly quicker.
IIRC Greece in our alternate timeline was not in WW1 but we need harry here to figure that out as well as define the exact participation by Atlantis (which depends on Greek involvement in Turkey) Nordmark and the SAE. Atlantis tentitavly has mandates in Turkey but I need to hammer these out with harry.
Atlantis would like to see a freindly Germany that isn't too restricted economically but nearly as restricted as historical military wise. A more defensive type military would be favoured more than a severely restricted and wanting fleet, and would also be more interesting(emagine german BB rebuilds!).

Quoted

what Nordmark would want to see regard fast attack craft is as follows. There should be a numerical cap on torpedoboats, which are defined as torpedocarrying vessels other than capital ships, cruisers, and destroyers - tentatively set the limit that there shall be no more torpedoboats than the maximum number of destroyers. There should also be a tonnage-limit - in historical VT this is set at 200 tons - setting it at 250-300 tons should be suitable here. Other vessels should not be permitted torpedoes nor a speed higher than 20 knots. No vessel should be fitted for, or be prepared to be fitted for, minelaying. That would be Nordmark's position on these specific matters in the hammering out of the VT.

This sounds good to me

When it comes to Atlantian involvement in WW1 most is in Turkey with some fighting in France, but what about Italy, Nordmark and the SAE? I'm guessing that Italy would be as Historical while the SAE may perhaps also be involved in Turkey and the ME as well as Africa, while Nordmark would likely consintrate on germany and Possibly Austria/Hungary or Belgium/France?
It would seem that Japan was in the war as historical but what about the U.S.? Perhaps they did not enter the war because of the posibility of conflict with mexico and drawing in pro-axis/nutral Iberia? That would even things out abit IMO and could still leave the U.S. in good shape militarily.

Hi folks...

Yes, I´m still urking around even though I have little time to contribute.

As for the SAE being involved in WW1... I´m away from my sources and can´t take a look if I have laid down anything yet but I strongly doubt the SAE was involved in any kind of land war fighting in Europe nor was the SAE involved from the beginning in 1914.

I think it is much more reasonable to assume that the SAE got involved once its trading suffered due to german raiders and U-Boats. It is most likely that the SAE joined the Allies and helped keep the southern hemisphere clean of german navy vessels.

Further more one can imagine the SAE to take german territories in the neighborhood once war was declared but without the map and my timeline at hand I really can´t tell if this is reasonable or if those territories already belonged to the SAE before.

Regarding a german post-VT navy... Actually the Baltic is of little importance for the SAE and our navy experts doubt small combatants to be very effective in North Sea conditions. We tend to support Nordmarks position just because our nations are closely connected but are willing to accept any other result of those negotiations as well as long as its reasonable.

Cheers,

HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
When it comes to Atlantian involvement in WW1 most is in Turkey with some fighting in France, but what about Italy, Nordmark and the SAE? I'm guessing that Italy would be as Historical while the SAE may perhaps also be involved in Turkey and the ME as well as Africa, while Nordmark would likely consintrate on germany and Possibly Austria/Hungary or Belgium/France?

It is likely that Nordmark was significantly involved on the Eastern Front, mainly in the Baltic area - perhaps with as much as a whole field-army of two-three corps. Of course, if Russia went to early peace, that would leave said field-army in something of a pickle, though I suspect this would be intertwined with the eventual independence of the Baltic states. Just what sort of a relationship between Russian and Nordmark would be the result is unclear to me - on the one hand, Nordmark would be havily involved on Russia's side, while on the other, the Russian peace would result in resentment from Nordmark towards Russia for leaving the Nordmark army out to dry, while Baltic independence resulting from Nordmark contribution likely would annoy Russia.

Quoted

It is likely that Nordmark was significantly involved on the Eastern Front, mainly in the Baltic area - perhaps with as much as a whole field-army of two-three corps. Of course, if Russia went to early peace, that would leave said field-army in something of a pickle, though I suspect this would be intertwined with the eventual independence of the Baltic states. Just what sort of a relationship between Russian and Nordmark would be the result is unclear to me - on the one hand, Nordmark would be havily involved on Russia's side, while on the other, the Russian peace would result in resentment from Nordmark towards Russia for leaving the Nordmark army out to dry, while Baltic independence resulting from Nordmark contribution likely would annoy Russia.

With Atlantis its quite different. Involvement in Turkey and the attempt by the Atlantian army to push through modern day Iraq to link up with russia before they pulled out of the war is not lost on them and eventually leads to the FAR alliance. In addition follow up actions after the darnelles action are also undertaken though with not too dissimilar results. Atlantis does gain some territory in the ME but does not completely defeat Turkey hence why Atlantis possesses some mandates there and there is no Turkish version of the VT, just a continued Atlantian presence in said mandates.

So, building on these discussions, how about:

Capital Ships:

-Maximum of 6 hulls, none exceeding standard tonnage of largest existing unit (25,000 t)
-Aggregate tonnage not to exceed 120,000 t
-Maximum caliber of 12"
-Part 3/A/VI of the Cleito Treaty (replacing ships laid down before 1911) does not apply

Aircraft Carriers:

-None permitted

Cruisers:

-Maximum 12 hulls, each not exceeding 8,000 t and 5.9" guns

Coastal Defence Ships

-None permitted

Destroyers:

-Maximum 24 hulls, each not exceeding 1,500 t and 5.1" guns

Submarines:

-None permitted

Torpedo Boats:

-Maximum 24 hulls, each not exceeding 300 t

Unrestricted:

(a) Naval surface combatant vessels of 600 tons (610 metric tons) standard displacement and under; provided they have none of the following characteristics:
(1) Are designed or fitted to launch torpedoes or mines;
(2) Are designed for a speed greater than 20.0 kts

(b) Naval surface combatant vessels exceeding 600 tons (610 metric tons), but not exceeding 2,000 tons (2,032 metric tons) standard displacement, provided they have none of the following characteristics:
(1) Mount a gun above 5.1 inch (130 mm) calibre;
(2) Mount more than eight guns above 3 inch (76 mm) calibre;
(3) Are designed or fitted to launch torpedoes or mines;
(4) Are designed for a speed greater than 20 knots.
(5) Are fitted to receive aircraft on board from the air.

(c) Naval surface vessels not specifically built as fighting ships which are employed on fleet duties or as troop transports or in some other way than as fighting ships, provided they have none of the following characteristics:
(1) Mount a gun above 5.9 inch (153 mm) calibre;
(2) Mount more than four guns above 3 inch (76 mm) calibre;
(3) Are designed or fitted to launch torpedoes; (4) Are designed for a speed greater than 20 knots;
(5) Are protected by armour plate on the hull;
(6) Are designed or fitted to launch mines;
(7) Are fitted to receive aircraft on board from the air;
( Mount more than one aircraft-launching apparatus on the centre line; or two, one on each broadside;
(9) If fitted with any means of launching aircraft into the air, are designed or adapted to operate at sea more than ten aircraft.

(Bearing in mind that for now, Germany can't operate naval air forces anyway).

Replacement

Dates and rules for the replacement of ships is as indicated in the Cleito Treaty.

Peng, could you clarify what you meant by "Strictly speaking, Nordmark is not alien to the former - as long as Germany doesn't start playing along the lines Italy and Austria-hungary did in the Adriatic "?

I don't quite follow you there.

Thanks, all, for the considerable amount of feedback on this topic...

Nordmark would press for the clause about no mines to extend to capital ships, cruisers, destroyers, and torpedoboats, as well.

Essentially the Adriatic became a rather difficult area of operations for largish vessels, as both Italians and Austro-Hungarians were rather diligent about the employment of light forces, small submarines, and mines - resulting in the Italian and austrian main-fleets being reduced to mainly fleets in being. Nordmark does not want any future wars to result in the Baltic becoming so congested with mines and torpedocraft that regular operations become impossible - on the other hand, nordmark does not see a reason for panic in the German battleline, which in all respects will be inferior to all but the oldest portion of the Nordmark battleline.

I can accept a universal ban on mine-laying equipment if the rest of what I posted is given a thumbs-up.

If Nordmark is truly concerned about mines, light forces, and submarines in the Baltic, perhaps you should consider a conference to limit the use of the same by all nations in the Baltic? After the South Atlantic situation is sorted out, that is.

Quoted

I can accept a universal ban on mine-laying equipment if the rest of what I posted is given a thumbs-up.

Funny, since in the beginning during the CT talks, I was considering to propose a ban on mines together with the subs. For some reason, I forgot to mention the mines back then. ;;
But holding a conference about mines, light forces, and submarines in the Baltic is not a bad idea.

Walter

The Russian and French governments are okay with the amended restrictions on Germany.