A sensible Versailles Treaty

[Tyr]

Borders probally aren't exact as I was just going off that map there not a OTL one.
Czechslovakia for instance should be pretty much as OTL.


Basically:

• Austria-Hungary continues to exist as a federation of 2 democratic parts under the monarchy
• The Baltics are united in a Federation too (preferably a monarchy). Its component parts being Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and the German Teutonia
• Italy gets a few islands, a bit more land in the east and S.Tyrol
• Yugoslavia is again a federation under a king. It is minus here though Slovakia and the Albanian areas
• Slovakia created as a independant little republic nestled between the 3 larger nations. A-H would have some portage rights here and the hope is overall it could become quite rich as a central trading point
• Germany would also remain a monarchy albeit now a democratic one. It stops any potential fuhrers...

Also though its not part of Versailles the middle east could probally do with a bit more sorting-

• No Saudis please
• Kurdistan (given to Italy as a mandate here- it would unbalance things too much for Britain or France to have it and it lets Italy feel significant, it's mostly self governing anyway...)
• Greece only gets a few of the overwhelmingly Greek majority areas rather than the entire west coast. Also Gallipoli to try and keep that straight a bit neutral and not totally under Turkish control (though of course Istanbul remains Turkish)
  
  
  
  edit- oh and those grey lines in northern Russia are what should go to Finland. Not that it would be in the treaty and not that its happening any time soon. More of an effort against totalitarian take over there would have been nice though. Maybe large international support for Finland in securing more areas since the great powers aren't going to be up for a war.

 

[Oddball]

Austria isn't really much stronger than in real life, and probably more unstable.

Would you care to elaborate the bold part?

 

[arctic warrior]

As already pointed out this hardly makes for a stable Europe post WWI. If it butterflies another Great War is another matter.
Problem is Germany as well as Austria and eastern Europe.
Your Germany may not have that amount of "bleeding" broders but they still have in relation to Poland and the Sudeten question can come up. Likewise you do not get rid of the Dolkstoss-legend. Come 1929 it is still ready to go down the gutter. Hitler will still have his prejudices and basis for his rethoric.
Austria is even worse off with the Italians having been denied Tirol - a war aim. Reparations in Dalmatia - yes but still you'd have Italia Irredenta. Also Carinthia could be a problem if a minor one...
I don't think the Lithuanians, Slovaks, Hungarians etc would like such dictate - anyway there was much turmoil in eastern Europe following WWI so things might end up quite different than thought out at Versaille.

 

[Faeelin]

Nothing is going to change the fact that Germany ends the war in debt far past any possibility of repaying it, even prior to reparations.

I dunno.

The German economy did fairly well in 1919 and 1920, and the mark stabilized in the summer of 1920 until May of 1921, when the reparations bill came do. So paying for it seems not impossible.

I'm actually fairly surprised you don't believe hyperinflation was engineered.

 

[Olmeka]

First you would have to define what sensible means. Borders based on ethnic lines ? Preventing another war ? Not angering several nationalities ?

Giving Poland Lithuania isn't sensible btw-simple access to sea is not a goal itself, the area in Pomorze was the exit point for majority of Polish trade due to river layout and transport infrastructure. That trade won't go through Lithuania. Any state that controls the area can make Poland collapse due to economic reasons and enforce a dictate.
Of course Lithuanians didn't want to be part of Polish state so that is another important point.
The third that that territory was majority Polish with Kashubian and German minority. No too much sense in giving them to Germans-another hotpoint.


And of course no treaty of Versailles will make the German nationalism go away. And as long as German nationalists will demand territories where Germans were 5 to 8 % of population(for example Poznan) the threat of war will remain.

 

[Markus]

Let´s foucus on the truely outrageous military limitations:

Everybody is allowed to have tanks – except Germany
Everybody is allowed to have an Air Force – except Germany
Everybody is allowed to have heavy artillery –except Germany

And it goes on:

Battleships: size 10,000tons, armament 11inch guns, six vessels permitted
Cruisers: 6000 tons, six ships
Destroyers: 12 of 800 tons
Subs: everybody is allowed … well, you know it!

No if I had to draft a Treaty that is unacceptable and make sure it will be violated at the earliest possible moment in time, the ToV would be it. It disarms Germany to the point of being defenceless. Something no government with several hostile powers at it´s border is going to tolerate.

So, limit the size of the Armed Forces to 300,000 professionals, permit an Air Force, make no limitations on land based weapon systems, and integrate Germany into the Washington Naval Treaty. Germany can have two 35,000 ton BBs, any number of Treaty cruisers and DDs are permited, but only a limited number of subs.

 

[Tyr]

Let´s foucus on the truely outrageous military limitations:

Everybody is allowed to have tanks – except Germany
Everybody is allowed to have an Air Force – except Germany
Everybody is allowed to have heavy artillery –except Germany

And it goes on:

Battleships: size 10,000tons, armament 11inch guns, six vessels permitted
Cruisers: 6000 tons, six ships
Destroyers: 12 of 800 tons
Subs: everybody is allowed … well, you know it!

No if I had to draft a Treaty that is unacceptable and make sure it will be violated at the earliest possible moment in time, the ToV would be it. It disarms Germany to the point of being defenceless. Something no government with several hostile powers at it´s border is going to tolerate.

So, limit the size of the Armed Forces to 300,000 professionals, permit an Air Force, make no limitations on land based weapon systems, and integrate Germany into the Washington Naval Treaty. Germany can have two 35,000 ton BBs, any number of Treaty cruisers and DDs are permited, but only a limited number of subs.

Germany doesn't really need a navy to defend itself, you can leave those things intact.
The tanks and airforce thing...well they're from a earlier time. By the 30s its clear such impositions would mean Germany is utterly incapable of fighting a war. In the WW1 era though they could still be capable of defending themselves without these.


For me I really think they should have left the monarchy in place. Its just crazy how they didn't.
Having a central figurehead would ensure stability and with huge constitutional restrictions on the monarch's power they and international oversight at all times we could stop them launching a coup themselves (not that they should want to if they're doing their job right)

 

[Faeelin]

For me I really think they should have left the monarchy in place. Its just crazy how they didn't.
Having a central figurehead would ensure stability and with huge constitutional restrictions on the monarch's power they and international oversight at all times we could stop them launching a coup themselves (not that they should want to if they're doing their job right)

This is kind of like how a King ensured stability in Romania, Italy, and Spain isn't it?

 

[Tyr]

This is kind of like how a King ensured stability in Romania, Italy, and Spain isn't it?

In Italy and Spain it should have, the monarchs were incapable and not entirely popular however.
In Romania...well it wasn't entirely a democracy. The monarch was more a real monarch.

Germany and Austria-Hungary were altogether more 'sensible' nations.
I'd think it would would better there; it has afterall in practically every other Germanic nation.

 

[Glen]

Considering that Poland didn't get Danzig this post made me go

Anyway, I LOVE how some people here are sure that the Great Powers were able to impose EVERYTHING on the Central-East Europe, where in fact a lot of changes were fait accompli by 1919

Exactly. People blame Versailles for mucking with the maps, but in fact a lot of that was done by force of arms by people there. The worst Versailles could be blamed for was taking land from Germany and also refusing to permit German-Austrian unification.

 

[Faeelin]

One change. Rather than demand reparations in gold from Germany, France and Belgium should have pushed for policies which would have given them a stake in profits from the Ruhr, and German manpower to reconstruct France and Belgium.

 

[Calgacus]

In Italy and Spain it should have, the monarchs were incapable and not entirely popular however.
In Romania...well it wasn't entirely a democracy. The monarch was more a real monarch.

Germany and Austria-Hungary were altogether more 'sensible' nations.
I'd think it would would better there; it has afterall in practically every other Germanic nation.

Wow, that seems really quite selective. "Sensible"? I'm not sure what in the twentieth century points to Germany and former A-H being more "sensible" than Spain or Romania. Spain was not just the result of an incompetent monarch, but an entire political and social system that had been corruptly clinging on to power for generations.

Funny to hear a self-proclaimed social democrat arguing in favour of constitutional monarchy, in any case.

 

[Tyr]

Wow, that seems really quite selective. "Sensible"? I'm not sure what in the twentieth century points to Germany and former A-H being more "sensible" than Spain or Romania.

I don't know how to explain it really, sensible is in brackets you'll notice.
I guess they were more 'civilised' than Spain and Romania. They had a longer history of being a modern, industrialised nation and a generally more urbanised population.
Germany and Austria were firmly first world. Romania quite mid-range, Spain...Variable across the country but mostly also mid-range.
Then of course the mentioned culture, I'd think Germans would be just more 'sensible', more willing to listen to authority and work within the system and all that.
I'll have to think how to explain it properly.

Spain was not just the result of an incompetent monarch, but an entire political and social system that had been corruptly clinging on to power for generations.

Yep, mistype. An incompetant monarchy in general I meant, not the specific man in power (that was more for Italy).

Funny to hear a self-proclaimed social democrat arguing in favour of constitutional monarchy, in any case.

How? Constitutional monarchies are the best form of government. And the most socialist countries in the world all use this.

 

[Will Lucky]

Hmm I was initally thinking lower the war-debt as this woud have removed the Hyper Inflation experienced in between 21-23. Of course the question is would Wall Street still chrash in 29? The Americans wouldnt be loaning as much to Germany anymore and economically it would be much more stable in Germany. We could also do with a less restrictive treaty on the Army Germany could muster.

I say Alsace-Lorraine still goes to France, Sutenland sticks with Germany, Danzig hmm intresting that one as it is the bridge to Prussia, I would say germany gets to keep it and the part of Northern Germany goes to Denmark still does.

 

[Magnificate]

Reposted from map thread:

Disclaimer: This map doesn't represent the exact treaty conditions I would consider optimal or most plausible. Though Baltic Confederation and independent Ukraine are steps in the right direction.

 

[Faeelin]

Hmm I was initally thinking lower the war-debt as this woud have removed the Hyper Inflation experienced in between 21-23. Of course the question is would Wall Street still chrash in 29? The Americans wouldnt be loaning as much to Germany anymore and economically it would be much more stable in Germany. We could also do with a less restrictive treaty on the Army Germany could muster.

Why should we grant Germany a larger military?

I agree that war debt should be reduced, butyou'd have to tie it to reparations and disarmament to get it to fly in Washington.

I say Alsace-Lorraine still goes to France, Sutenland sticks with Germany, Danzig hmm intresting that one as it is the bridge to Prussia, I would say germany gets to keep it and the part of Northern Germany goes to Denmark still does.

Germany never had the Sudetenland, BTW.

 

[Valdemar II]

Reposted from map thread:

Disclaimer: This map doesn't represent the exact treaty conditions I would consider optimal or most plausible. Though Baltic Confederation and independent Ukraine are steps in the right direction.

This is quite a improvement for Poland they have a new potential ally in the East against USSR, they have an easier access to the sea, Of course they're have a relative pro-Polish area in the east with an deeply anti-Polish area in the north. But I don't see German hostility to Poland becoming greater, I can see it rather go the other way without the East Prussian economy going down thanks to transportation problems.

 

[Faeelin]

BTW, where is the base map from?

 

[karl2025]

Germany doesn't really need a navy to defend itself, you can leave those things intact.

I'd agree, but I really think that Germany should be allowed to build a Navy as they see fit, with reasonable restrictions along the lines of the Washington Treaty. I say this because
1) At the time the navy was the biggest display of national pride/power, and having one would make the Germans feel less repressed and less vengeful.
2) A larger navy means less money going into the Air Force and Army.
3) The Germans don't really have a hope to match the British or French or Americans, let alone any combination of the three because the allies have a vested interest in building a navy (Colony protection) and the Germans don't.

 

[stevep]

I'd agree, but I really think that Germany should be allowed to build a Navy as they see fit, with reasonable restrictions along the lines of the Washington Treaty. I say this because
1) At the time the navy was the biggest display of national pride/power, and having one would make the Germans feel less repressed and less vengeful.
2) A larger navy means less money going into the Air Force and Army.
3) The Germans don't really have a hope to match the British or French or Americans, let alone any combination of the three because the allies have a vested interest in building a navy (Colony protection) and the Germans don't.

Karl

Point 2 has some validity but having just fought a long war to remove the German naval threat I can't see Britain going for a sizeable modern German navy. Don't forget that we're talking about 2-3 years before the historical Washington Treaty. The only good thing about such an agreement from Britain's point of view, and the British government wouldn't see it as such at the time is it would kill any such naval treaty stone dead!

Steve