Treaty_of_Versailles questions.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

It is a weak model because the UK had not been defeated and its Navy ruled the seas. Central Power Armies were days from conquering the Russian capital. Much different negotiating environment. The earlier offer of the Germans reject by the Russians was a better indication.

Sure the Germans could impose what they wanted on France and Belgium but only at the cost of fighting the UK indefinitely. Internally, Germany had severe political issues. Unless you do an early CP win, Germany will have to negotiate with the UK which lightens the harshness against France and Belgium.

I am not saying the Germans want to be "fairer" with France, but they are too weak to impose the ToV type terms.

See above. It is not what they wanted, it what they would be able to do.

So you're arguing capacity matters but intent doesn't? Which is odd when we're discussing the moral intent of the leaderships. That's like saying:
i) a chooses not to attack b
ii) b would like to attack b but dare not as a is so much stronger than it.
iii) a and b are morally equivalent.

Even if that were so then Versailles is definitely even more moderate than Brest-Litovsk because not only was it more moderate in absolute terms but the allies, unlike the Germans against the Soviets, could have made it considerably harsher.

The earlier offer by Germany to the Soviets is a poor example because it was dictated by German desire. They wanted to make a quick peace, keeping substantial gains, because they needed to concentrate forces on the western front. If it had been an example of real German intent they could have made a more moderate treaty in 1918, whether with the Soviets or even pulling out of some areas, preserving their own resources in the process, and leaving them to the locals.

We are on an AH board. Of course we speculate. Any POD or ATL requires speculation. If you believe the information available is too weak to do analysis, then why are you posting on this thread? I understand that you may disagree with my analysis, but to simply state that I speculate as a rebuttal is quite useless.

What was being asked was for facts supporting the argument, which was being questioned as dubious.

As to why the UK will try to save France. Easy, to lessen German domination of Europe which was one of the major goals of the UK during the war. The question is not will the UK try to help France, but "How successful will the UK be at helping France?"

That is true but it was only necessary because Germany was seeking to further upset the balance of power.

Also, It is possible that Germany would remove everything that can be shipped and destroying the rest combine with limited reparations. You are creating a false choice here. Plundering and reparations in a treaty don't always come in a pair. You can do neither, both, one or the other.

Very true but what's the relevance? The point made was that reparations have a justification in terms of compensation for damage/destruction to civilian property by a defeated foe. Since Germany wasn't occupied, other than briefly in E Prussia and in a part of A-L that became French, it had no basis for any reparations as compensation rather than punitive damage if it had won. The fact if it had won, a malicious Germany could both demand punitive damage and deliberately destroy assets in occupied territory is nothing to do with what's being discussed.

Steve

[Zmflavius]

Originally Posted by stevep

Actually the problem for Germany was that it decided fighting the war was more important than feeding its people. People starved in Germany and occupied areas largely because Germany stripped its agriculture of men, horses and fertiliser to put into the war effort. This wasn't because they were at war and needed it, it was because they mis-judged the allocation of resources.

The facts don't really support this. Germany was hardly the only country to mobilize an extremely large proportion of its men, but it suffered the worst from famine, save perhaps the Ottoman Empire and Russia, who suffered from backwards infrastructure. Germany, on the other hand, was a net food importer, and imported much of the nitrates critical to production of fertilizer. Both of these goods were included in the blockade, to the detriment of the German people.

There is a difference between mobilizing and going to war, except for Germany because of the mess its war plan got itself into.

Steve

No, there really isn't. Mobilization means that you're moving all your troops to the border, and all but means: "As soon as we're there, it's time to attack." If a neighboring country mobilizes, they're not doing it to give you flowers and roses.

[Adler17]

Originally Posted by zoomar

Obviously, the victor has the right to alter the constitution of another country. Are you implying somehow that Germany had not lost WW1? In the situation I describe, France can't invade Germany any more than it already has.

Agreed, the interests of the Allies were not all the same. Perhaps France did want to permantly dismember Germany, perhaps not. Frankly, even if this was the French desire, it is unlikely that the US and UK would let them do this. As for Poland, it was not an allied state. Once its border with Germany was established by treaty, Allied occupying forces would protect the border from further Polish demands.

No one except the people of a state has the right to alter the constitution. And French forces did nothing to prevent Polish insurgents to invade Silesia...

Adler

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by stevep

Actually the problem for Germany was that it decided fighting the war was more important than feeding its people. People starved in Germany and occupied areas largely because Germany stripped its agriculture of men, horses and fertiliser to put into the war effort. This wasn't because they were at war and needed it, it was because they mis-judged the allocation of resources.

UK still had illegal blockade that resulted in 100K's of civilian death. It was and is a war crime. The USA was supervising the feeding of Belgium, so there is no moral excuse for the UK deny enough food for the Belgium population.

Now yes, Germany planning and execution for a long war was poor.

[zoomar]

Originally Posted by Adler17

No one except the people of a state has the right to alter the constitution. And French forces did nothing to prevent Polish insurgents to invade Silesia...

Adler

You just don't get it do you. Germany lost WW1. Totally. Completely. They just didn't know it.

Do you believe the Allies had "no right" to alter Germany's constitution after WW2? Do you really believe the constitution of the Federal Republic could have taken effect in West Germany without the approval of the British, French, and Americans who still occupied Germany?

Although Germany lost WW1 just about as completely as it lost WW2, there is a big difference. In 1919 Germany was treated as a "bad boy" independent country that was isolated and and alowed to fester in its own angry juices and - as you say - be victimized by Poles and other insurgents. In 1945, Germany completely ceased to exist as an independent nation. It was governed in totality by the allies and the allies assumed protection over their zones of occupation. Had Poles crossed the border of the Soviet zone to grab some territory they would have been not so gently shown the door by the Red Army. Same thing if Czechs tried to grab a piece of Bavaria from the US zone. Why should the allies have done that in 1919-20 to protect a nation they still considered an enemy they couldn't trust? If the allies actually governed Germany then, things would have been different.

Modern, liberal, Germany today exists only because of the allied occupation.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by stevep

So you're arguing capacity matters but intent doesn't? Which is odd when we're discussing the moral intent of the leaderships. That's like saying:
i) a chooses not to attack b
ii) b would like to attack b but dare not as a is so much stronger than it.
iii) a and b are morally equivalent.

Even if that were so then Versailles is definitely even more moderate than Brest-Litovsk because not only was it more moderate in absolute terms but the allies, unlike the Germans against the Soviets, could have made it considerably harsher.

The earlier offer by Germany to the Soviets is a poor example because it was dictated by German desire. They wanted to make a quick peace, keeping substantial gains, because they needed to concentrate forces on the western front. If it had been an example of real German intent they could have made a more moderate treaty in 1918, whether with the Soviets or even pulling out of some areas, preserving their own resources in the process, and leaving them to the locals.

Both capacity and intent matter. The original analysis was comparing the ToV with German intent. It is not an apple to apple comparison.

For a harsh peace treaty, even if an ATL win, Germany needs both the intent and capacity to impose very harsh terms. Germany would lack ability to impose harsh terms unless it wanted years more war with the UK.

The earlier offer is an excellent example, or at least as good as we have IOTL. Germany seeking Peace with a yet undefeated Russia is closer to Germany seeking peace with undefeated UK than B-L where the Russian capital is days from falling. For B-L to be a better example, SeaLion is already successful, the defense of London have been beaten, and the London government is in panic.

[Adler17]

Originally Posted by zoomar

You just don't get it do you. Germany lost WW1. Totally. Completely. They just didn't know it.

Do you believe the Allies had "no right" to alter Germany's constitution after WW2? Do you really believe the constitution of the Federal Republic could have taken effect in West Germany without the approval of the British, French, and Americans who still occupied Germany?

Although Germany lost WW1 just about as completely as it lost WW2, there is a big difference. In 1919 Germany was treated as a "bad boy" independent country that was isolated and and alowed to fester in its own angry juices and - as you say - be victimized by Poles and other insurgents. In 1945, Germany completely ceased to exist as an independent nation. It was governed in totality by the allies and the allies assumed protection over their zones of occupation. Had Poles crossed the border of the Soviet zone to grab some territory they would have been not so gently shown the door by the Red Army. Same thing if Czechs tried to grab a piece of Bavaria from the US zone. Why should the allies have done that in 1919-20 to protect a nation they still considered an enemy they couldn't trust? If the allies actually governed Germany then, things would have been different.

Modern, liberal, Germany today exists only because of the allied occupation.

No. Do you know the history of the modern Grundgesetz? Do you know, who made it? Yes, the Allies were to accept it. Nevertheless it was no dictate. If Germany somehow was not occupied, you would see a similar constitution made. Perhaps the very same. Oh, the Poles grabbed a lot of territory. As did the Soviets.

In international law only the people of a nation are allowed to give themselves the constitution they want. All actions of occupation powers to change that are null and void.

Adler

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Adler17

No. Do you know the history of the modern Grundgesetz? Do you know, who made it? Yes, the Allies were to accept it. Nevertheless it was no dictate. If Germany somehow was not occupied, you would see a similar constitution made. Perhaps the very same. Oh, the Poles grabbed a lot of territory. As did the Soviets.

In international law only the people of a nation are allowed to give themselves the constitution they want. All actions of occupation powers to change that are null and void.

Adler

Actually the Soviets just grabbed present-day Kaliningrad. They ensured Poland grabbed a lot of territory but took relatively little for themselves.

[Zmflavius]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Actually the Soviets just grabbed present-day Kaliningrad. They ensured Poland grabbed a lot of territory but took relatively little for themselves.

Depending on how you want to interpret it, you could say that the entire Eastern Bloc was a grab by the USSR.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Zmflavius

Depending on how you want to interpret it, you could say that the entire Eastern Bloc was a grab by the USSR.

Perhaps, in a sense. However given the USSR ultimately left it and its control over the whole thing was fragile, it's a questionable interpretation that turns on what you consider a grab to be. It's definitely not freedom, and it 100% is regional hegemony maintained by the Soviets sending tanks and cannons to shell anyone that questioned it no matter how one quibbles with it, however.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by zoomar

You just don't get it do you. Germany lost WW1. Totally. Completely. They just didn't know it.

Do you believe the Allies had "no right" to alter Germany's constitution after WW2? Do you really believe the constitution of the Federal Republic could have taken effect in West Germany without the approval of the British, French, and Americans who still occupied Germany?

You seem to be arguing -"might makes right".

This is a common position in world history and everyday life. But if you believe might makes right, then there is no point in discussing morality and international law. Using the standard of "might makes right", all actions by victorious powers are just in all wars.

Morality is based on some system of ethical values that apply to all humans. International law is based on previous treaties and conventions applied to all nations.

Of course, France/UK/USA had the power to impose the ToV, as OTL shows clearly. It is the claim that one side followed international law (Entente) and the other did not (Germany) that is false. The claim about self determination being the principal used with ethnic groups is also false. It was merely an excuse used to justify the actions the winners wanted to take. The fact that almost a hundred years later that we still have people take the position that the Entente followed international law or ethnic self determination is a tribute to the exception propaganda effort by the Entente.

Very, very few take the excuses used to justify colonialism seriously. Very few even bother defending the excuses used by the USA in Latin America. No one defends the opium war. But yet we have this one huge exception of WW1, where most people still believe the Entente PR. Three cheers for the UK propaganda efforts, which may be the best in modern history.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Adler17

No. Do you know the history of the modern Grundgesetz? Do you know, who made it? Yes, the Allies were to accept it. Nevertheless it was no dictate. If Germany somehow was not occupied, you would see a similar constitution made. Perhaps the very same. Oh, the Poles grabbed a lot of territory. As did the Soviets.

In international law only the people of a nation are allowed to give themselves the constitution they want. All actions of occupation powers to change that are null and void.

Adler

So you think the people of East Germany were free to dictate their own constitution do you? West Germany was the creation of the Western Allies as bulwark against Communism, Did Germans play a part in shaping it? Of course. Did the Allies dictate some of the parameters of that new state? Unequivocally yes.
I can't help but see a pattern to your posts of suggesting poor old Germany was being willfully victimized by the mean old Allies in both world wars, neither of which it caused or even made more likely.

[Zmflavius]

Originally Posted by Garrison

So you think the people of East Germany were free to dictate their own constitution do you? West Germany was the creation of the Western Allies as bulwark against Communism, Did Germans play a part in shaping it? Of course. Did the Allies dictate some of the parameters of that new state? Unequivocally yes.
I can't help but see a pattern to your posts of suggesting poor old Germany was being willfully victimized by the mean old Allies in both world wars, neither of which it caused or even made more likely.

To be frank, Post-WWII Germany was the sort of state which desperately needed someone sane to dictate a constitution to it. I think I should also make it perfectly clear that by the time we reach the 1930s, anything I tend to agree on with Adler starts to diverge quite significantly.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Zmflavius

To be frank, Post-WWII Germany was the sort of state which desperately needed someone sane to dictate a constitution to it. I think I should also make it perfectly clear that by the time we reach the 1930s, anything I tend to agree on with Adler starts to diverge quite significantly.

Exactly, it was a ruin with no working model to fall back on. The western Allies weren't altruists but they wanted to create a new Germany in their own image for their own purposes. That it turned out pretty well for the Germans was a side effect.

What Adler doesn't seem to accept is that by the '30s the provisions of Versailles were being rolled back, a German regime that wasn't hell bent on war as Hitler's Germany was might have rearmed to a degree but if it was seen as co-operative then it could possibly have gotten its key demands by diplomacy.

[b12ox]

Originally Posted by Garrison

What Adler doesn't seem to accept is that by the '30s the provisions of Versailles were being rolled back, a German regime that wasn't hell bent on war as Hitler's Germany was might have rearmed to a degree but if it was seen as co-operative then it could possibly have gotten its key demands by diplomacy.

What provisions were being rolled back?

[Shaby]

Originally Posted by b12ox

What provisions were being rolled back?

For one, armaments. French were prepared to negotiate increase of Reichswehr to a quarter of a million, with view of equalizing it to French army at either half a million each or even lowering of their own force to 300.000. IIRC from Churchill's memoirs. He mentioned something like this. Reparations were being scaled back. German was returned Saar after referendum. Plenty of stuff was being relaxed.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by b12ox

What provisions were being rolled back?

There was the progressive scaling back of the reparations which was achieved by negotiation and of course the reoccupation of the Rhineland which the British and French chose to accept as a de facto change. There was a feeling in some quarters that the treaty had been too harsh and a willingess to to make adjustments, or at least do nothing when Germany chose to violate them. Added to that there was the desperate desire to avoid another war at almost any cost.

Again though the treaty may have been harsh but the real problem was that the Germans convinced themselves that they never really lost the war at all and Versailles was a sell out by treacherous politicians. With that idea taking root very early on its hard to imagine any version of the treaty that wouldn't have caused resentment.

[jmc247]

Originally Posted by Garrison

There was the progressive scaling back of the reparations which was achieved by negotiation and of course the reoccupation of the Rhineland which the British and French chose to accept as a de facto change. There was a feeling in some quarters that the treaty had been too harsh and a willingess to to make adjustments, or at least do nothing when Germany chose to violate them. Added to that there was the desperate desire to avoid another war at almost any cost.

Again though the treaty may have been harsh but the real problem was that the Germans convinced themselves that they never really lost the war at all and Versailles was a sell out by treacherous politicians. With that idea taking root very early on its hard to imagine any version of the treaty that wouldn't have caused resentment.

The problem was the terms of the treaty would be fine for a nation that was conqured.

But, that didn't happen.

There are degrees of losing a war and having your Army be defeated in the field far from home is very different then being defeated and conqured. If they wanted to go with the terms they did in the Versailles Treaty they should have continued the war and gone onto Berlin.

[Shaby]

Originally Posted by jmc247

There are degrees of losing a war and having your Army be defeated in the field far from home is very different then being defeated and conqured. If they wanted to go with the terms they did in the Versailles Treaty they should have continued the war and gone onto Berlin.

why? Why waste lives for a cause that in the Allied eyes has already been achieved? Those German soldiers that have not joined revolution at home were utterly demoralized. They could still shoot though and surging into country where people were shooting at each other is a recipe for disaster. Besides, Allies were tired of war. They grabbed first chance for peace that presented itself. It is only in hindsight that it appeared this decision was a bad one.

As for the terms of the treaty, I read somewhere that people of the Allied countries expected nothing less. Even if any of Allied statesmen wanted to propose and negotiate less harsh terms, the others wouldn't let them. And from French perspective a country that attacked them twice in the generation, threatening them multiply times in between, deserved all tey got.

[b12ox]

I see some contradictions here. Pretty much everyone admits that the powers went too hard on Germany in Versaille, yet nobody wants to admit that Germans had good reasons to vote for the Nazis.

Hitler issued a bunch of offers to the Entente to scale down and equalize arms which the Powers wouldnt accept. Thats what i red someplace.

Was it the ammount of reparations to France that was the beef of the whole thing and never resolved satisfactory?

Rheinland case was relativly late in 1936. The Nazi sheer madness at this point went to far to be stopped other than by force.