A sensible Versailles Treaty

[Markus]

Why should we grant Germany a larger military?

You either allow Germany do be able to defend itself or the whole Treaty goes down the crapper as soon as you stop pointing a gun to their heads. Something that costs you a lot of money and makes sure your differences are not resolved, at least not peacefully.

By the way, alternately you might as well scrap your tanks, demolish your planes and throw away your 6inch guns. That´s what the ToV "promised": mutual disarmament, not unilateral.

 

[Superdude]

To be honest, allowing Germany to rearm legally as opposed to illegally seems a tad risky.

 

[stevep]

Guys

Not quite sure what the starting conditions are as the link at the start refers to a thread ranking US Presidents. However from the snippets referencing talk about the state of play in eastern Europe I'm presuming that means something very near OTL in terms of the starting conditions.

I suspect that rules out one useful step, maintaining the Austrian empire in modified form. I.e. its core territories of Austria, Bohemia, Croatia possibly adding Silesia and giving a more democratic constitutional system. That would give a bulwark in an unstable region and reduce the level of economic disruption by the multitude of borders. Especially if you also managed to keep the Hungarian kingdom part of it, even if areas such as Bosnia were transferred to a Greater Serbia/Yugoslavian kingdom.

However how about a more draconian political move with a softer economic one. The allies give up most reparations, with possibly a few exceptions such as for Belgium. In return the US agrees to Britain's proposal that both powers cancel the war debts of allies. This avoids much of the economic instability that followed and you can probably butterfly away the great depression. Also it removes one of the sore points with Russia.

At the same time a harsher political line is taken with the partition of the German empire. A-L will be returned to France, I can't see any way to alter that. However the various states in the former empire are separated from Prussia which is broken into 3 parts. In the NW the kingdom of Hanover is restored and probably enlarged, including the German parts of S-H. This means that the rump Prussian state is isolated from the North Sea. The Prussian eastern core area around Brandenburg and the old provinces of Prussia stays under the dynasty and are responsible for the reparations that are made. In the west the industrial Rhineland is made an independent republic. [Possibly also Saxony restored to its per 1815 borders].

As such French and other neighbours are given assurances against Germany getting too strong. However there is much less need for hiving off parts of Germany to non-German states to try and weaken it, causing less resentment. By adding political divisions to the existing social ones between the developed west and the generally socially more conservative east, along with the fact the rump Prussia is paying the compensation you should have a chance of maintaining the division.

Given such a division there would not be a great need for military restrictions as the various rump states would, while in several cases significant regional powers, not be strong enough to pose a threat to their main neighbours. The treaty would seek to prevent the re-creation of a Great Germany, at least without the consent of the other great powers. [Which means its only likely path would be by diplomacy].

Steve

 

[Superdude]

Unfortunately, that would lead to a continuation of the war.

 

[corourke]

Given such a division there would not be a great need for military restrictions as the various rump states would, while in several cases significant regional powers, not be strong enough to pose a threat to their main neighbours. The treaty would seek to prevent the re-creation of a Great Germany, at least without the consent of the other great powers. [Which means its only likely path would be by diplomacy].

However that makes the Germanies vulnerable to French and Polish agression, which you can be sure will happen. I'm sure that if the French end up going Fascist later they'd march into the Rhineland, and depending on how much Poland ends up getting, they'll probably have a bone or two to pick with Prussia as well.

 

[Calgacus]

To be honest, allowing Germany to rearm legally as opposed to illegally seems a tad risky.

Politically impossible in France and Britain in that context. People seem to forget just how much people resented Germany after WW1 - they were seen as the criminals whose warmongering caused the death of millions of young men. Whatever the truth of that, it will be difficult to persuade the mass of people that Germany should be treated lightly so they don't do it all again.

 

[Markus]

To be honest, allowing Germany to rearm legally as opposed to illegally seems a tad risky.

IMO it´s the opposite. Reasonable limitations are much more likely to be respected than this utter nonsense the ToV dictated. And we know how that one worked: immediate treaty violation by default. @Calgacus: Re-arming is not the question in 1919, Germany would not almost completely be disarmed.

And breaking-up Germany is not possible. Your are dealing with one nation and people who see themselves as a part of this one nation. Again, only sheer force could keep the seperate states from uniting ASAP. So you need make sure the new states are dictaorships ignoring the will of the people and to threaten an invasion in case they turn democratic and try to unifiy. Fat lot of good that will do for you!

edit: Just to give you Americans an idea of the absurdity of the proposal. Think of this. A peace treaty seperates the USA into five parts. New England in the Northeast, the Confedeate States in the south, the Rust Belt State in the central North, the MidWest and the Pacific Free State(Cal+Wash+Oreg).

 

[Vault-Scope]

You are going to need a lot to convince Clemenceau to agree to this. He wanted Germany to pay, so he would do anything in his power to get Poland as strong as possible at the expense of the Germans.

8 grams of lead by some anarchist would do it...

 

[Gladi]

The Slovaks was rather apathetic in their dealings with the Hungary before becoming part of Czechoslovakia, so they're quite likely to accept status quo.

Bright day
What!? Apathetic, now means having your national leaders in jail, now?

 

[Magnificate]

BTW, where is the base map from?

I use Wikipedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rzeczpospolita_1920.png - they have detailed and easly editable collection of interwar Poland maps.

 

[Faeelin]

I actually meant Valdemar's 1919 map.

 

[Valdemar II]

I actually meant Valdemar's 1919 map.

It was one I found in my paint archives, I think I got in from the Our Timelines Maps thread.

 

[ArKhan]

No Poland. That's the only way it can be done. The only question is: how can we avoid Poland?

 

[Condottiero]

What about austrian Bavaria?

 

[seraphim74]

Originally posted by ArKhan

No Poland. That's the only way it can be done. The only question is: how can we avoid Poland?

Make Poland loose war with the Soviets in 1920: Western powers intervene, but are not interested in prolonging the war; German help is needed so in 1921 there are some correction in the Versailles Treaty:
Independent Poland, but much smaller than IOTL, without Pomerania and Silesia but with bigger part of Great Poland (Poznań/Posen), Curzon Line as eastern border.
Much smaller or no reparations from Germany.
Such a scenario is, IMHO, the best case for Germany. Of course it doesn't mean it is a best scenario from general POV (especially from Polish POV).

 

[Tyr]

Its all well and good to say versailles should have had less reperations but how can we get this? There's just no way France would agree, they wanted to destroy Germany.
I'd think you would need a worse WW1 first that knocks out France as a major speaker at the peace negotiations...but then if that happened Britain may well not want the strong Germany it did IOTL...

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

What if you let France destroy Germany? I think that a good argument can be made that the problem with Versailles is that it was not harsh enough. It was a middle way that pissed off Germany with its harshness, but didn't defang Germany completely.

So lets say that France is really all about cutting Germany up, and finally "settles" for just expanding its border to the left bank of the Rhine. Not demilitarized zone, not a zone of occupation, straight annexation of all Germany west of the Rhine to France. Plus the indemnity, arms restrictions and war guilt that we all know from the Versailles Treaty.

France now has a much more easily defended border, and probably feels much better about itself. It has access to large amounts of industry and coal. I would expect that a lot of Germans wouldn't like this annexation, but they lost the war, and this is what happens when you lose. Would the Germans who lived in French Rhineland emigrate back to Germany? Would the French try and encourage them to?

Anyway, this is a kind of more sensible Versailles, since it would probably prevent WWII as we know it.

 

[Gladi]

Its all well and good to say versailles should have had less reperations but how can we get this? There's just no way France would agree, they wanted to destroy Germany.

Simply? The USA agree to reduce the wardebts?

 

[Valdemar II]

What if you let France destroy Germany? I think that a good argument can be made that the problem with Versailles is that it was not harsh enough. It was a middle way that pissed off Germany with its harshness, but didn't defang Germany completely.

So lets say that France is really all about cutting Germany up, and finally "settles" for just expanding its border to the left bank of the Rhine. Not demilitarized zone, not a zone of occupation, straight annexation of all Germany west of the Rhine to France. Plus the indemnity, arms restrictions and war guilt that we all know from the Versailles Treaty.

France now has a much more easily defended border, and probably feels much better about itself. It has access to large amounts of industry and coal. I would expect that a lot of Germans wouldn't like this annexation, but they lost the war, and this is what happens when you lose. Would the Germans who lived in French Rhineland emigrate back to Germany? Would the French try and encourage them to?

Anyway, this is a kind of more sensible Versailles, since it would probably prevent WWII as we know it.

Except it would mean that France allies would make a separate peace with Germany and let France and Germany duke it out, so that Versailles treaty would give Germany the entire of Lorraine and the old easten border.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Except it would mean that France allies would make a separate peace with Germany and let France and Germany duke it out, so that Versailles treaty would give Germany the entire of Lorraine and the old easten border.

Let me elaborate the setting of my idea. At the Versailles Peace Conference the Allies decide to grant France all German territory west of the Rhine, but otherwise the treaty is unchanged. With the added industrial and resource capacity, plus a much easily defended border, the French are in a better position vis a vis Germany than OTL. The French feel better about the Treaty, and maybe because France was granted those territories the Italians are also able to go hog-wild on the Ilyrian coast.

The Germans may not like it, but by the time the treaty is presented to the public the Germany military is not capable of restarting the war. The Germans are forced to accept the Treaty, and relinquish all territory west of the Rhine to France.