Germany says no to Versailes- do the allies restart war

[Derek Jackson]

WI Germany refused to sign the 1919 treaty. What would the allies do.

Suppose the Germans put together convincing propaganda about lets be fair. Would Public opinion stand starting the killing again in the summer of 1919.

Could Britain and France have coped with occupying Germany?

[Kabraloth]

Since the German Army is all but dissolved, the allies simply invade and occupy. I think they'd break up Germany, too.

[Wozza]

They could simply keep up the blockade, I do not think the Germans would be able to fight even the French alone.

[Max Sinister]

The Allies already had occupied the Rhineland when the treaty was to be signed, and also had bridgeheads. Wouldn't take them much to take the Ruhr too.

[David S Poepoe]

Yes, the blockade would have remained in place, in fact it wasn't lifted immediately if I recall correctly. Pershing probably would have pushed for an army of occupation, which he favored. I strongly doubt that the Allied Armies would have encountered any meaningful resistance had they entered Germany.

What is possible is that the Allies would have made peace with the individual German states as they advance thru towards Berlin. The central government would be virtually ignored. It is probable that the Allies would first be the occupying power and then work with reorganized former German units (ie. the Frei Corps) in order to prevent the outbreak and spread of communism.

[MerryPrankster]

The Allies kept the blockade during the peace treaty, using the suffering of the civilian population to force the German government to accept certain terms rather than fighting them (and thus delaying the lifting of the blockade).

Of course, keeping some sort of blockade might make sense, if the Germans are importing lots of war material and there isn't a final peace (just a military cease-fire).

However, the cavalier-ness of the plan re: civilians and the political reasoning for it is despicable.

[Alratan]

I imagine that we could well see large scale societal breakdown as the central government disintegrates, and the blockade drives the civilian population to desperation. It won't quite be "he made a desert, and called it peace", but the major cities are going to become very unpleasant.

[Steffen]

On the original question- yes. Given France, Britain and Belgium went through 4 hard years, they are likely to go for one more heave.

Interesting question about the german government. The cabinet Scheidemann resigned because they didn´t want to sign it. Foreign minister Graf Brockdorf-Rantzau called it a crime, Scheidemann himself vowed his hand should foul if he signs this paper.

If the war starts again, I think the Weimar coalition will first be praised and after the inevitable defeat seen as the agents of finis germaniae. The Poles and surely also the Chechs will try to grab land in the East, and maybe french and british march on Berlin.

[HueyLong]

There would be horrible civil war, with Allied supported Freikorps (!) fighting German Communists. The blockade and everything would definitely radicalize the populace even earlier. Imagine pseudo-Nazis, but in 1919.

[Steffen]

There would be horrible civil war, with Allied supported Freikorps (!) fighting German Communists. The blockade and everything would definitely radicalize the populace even earlier. Imagine pseudo-Nazis, but in 1919.

I don´t see Nazis as we know it a s a prominent factor, rather a "normal" right-wing government with people like von Kahr on the drivers seat.

The civil war- I´d say rather shorter if bloodier. No center-orientated government to moderate the Freikorps - Klappe zu, Affe tot.

[HueyLong]

I said pseudo-Nazis, because while they will not dislike Jews, they will be violently anti-communist. And considering that the Freikorps did originate the stabbed in the back theory, it is not a stretch to say they were pseudo-Nazis.

Of course, the Freikorps were also anti-capitalist, because they were middle class and unemployed, like the SA and the squadristi. If the Freikorps get more infleunce, and a full scale civil war, then suffice it to say teh government will be far from "normal".

[Kabraloth]

I said pseudo-Nazis, because while they will not dislike Jews, they will be violently anti-communist. And considering that the Freikorps did originate the stabbed in the back theory, it is not a stretch to say they were pseudo-Nazis.

Of course, the Freikorps were also anti-capitalist, because they were middle class and unemployed, like the SA and the squadristi. If the Freikorps get more infleunce, and a full scale civil war, then suffice it to say teh government will be far from "normal".
The Freikorps were recruited among the extreme right, often made up from disbanded army units. If they get more influence, you will either have a dictatorship of the military or a return of the Kaiser, imo.
And pretty much everybody to the right of the communists was anti-communist.

[Steffen]

The Freikorps were recruited among the extreme right, often made up from disbanded army units. If they get more influence, you will either have a dictatorship of the military or a return of the Kaiser, imo.
And pretty much everybody to the right of the communists was anti-communist.

not so sure about the Kaiser, but the crown prince- experienced military commander, not seen as a goofy weak guy by the establishment.

Interesting how much of a roll-back will be possible: The bavarian crown prince Rupprecht is a prime contender for getting his crown back, Wilhelm II (Württemberg) was well-loved by the people, he may come back, Saxony will be a main battle ground as it is quite "red".

[Kabraloth]

I meant Kaiser as it is - a title and a position. Not Willy - I don't think that many people wanted him back. I do agree that the crown prince is way more likely.

[HueyLong]

But again, you guys have to also look at the anti-capitalist bias of the Freikorps. The Freikorps were pretty well known for disliking the commie striker and the fat capitalist, alike.

[Max Sinister]

If the Allies support the Freikorps, and the Communists don't take over Germany before, Germany might turn into yet another right-wing dictature, a bit like Austria was. They'll hide their wish for revenge, but still think all the time about it. When the right opportunity comes (war against the Soviet Union?), they'll use it to get lost territory back. Nazis might still be around, as long as they don't try to topple the government, they'll be tolerated, although the government won't take their suggestions seriously.

[Steffen]

But again, you guys have to also look at the anti-capitalist bias of the Freikorps. The Freikorps were pretty well known for disliking the commie striker and the fat capitalist, alike.

I think one of the most hated persons in Weimar Germany was Hugo Stinnes.

The "anti-capitalist bias" might only be strange from an american perspective. "bussiness-friendly" means the farmer, retail trader, master craftsman with his own shop, and does not neccessarily include High Finance or Big Bussiness.

[Kabraloth]

Let me attempt to break it down, as good as I know it:
High Finance friendly/Deregulation/Little government = Liberals
Worker friendly/Regulation to protect the workers/Internationalism = Socalists
Small/Medium Business Friendly/Landowner-friendly (Junkers)/Trying to conserve the old values/Nationalism = Conservatives

[Johnnyreb]

All this has a very familiar ring to it. Invading a country and then not having the faintest idea what to do about it. Perhaps the Allies could have organised some free and democratic elections and got on with searching for oil, sorry, coal.

It makes you long for the simplicities of the Middle Ages. Invade a country, lay waste to it, go back home. Let the inhabitants get on with it afterwards. Very simple.

Or the Roman method. Invade a country, lay waste to it, then invite the inhabitants to be citizens of your own country. It solves the problem of german communists, fascists, socialists etc as they all will be European MPs. If the Germans object to being governed from Paris or London, just point out they're now governed from Brussels.

[HueyLong]

Sorry, but you're wrong. The German right of the 20s and thirties was definitely for big business. Just look at some of the names and backgrounds. Even the Nazis could not stand the Freikorps position on economics, and so removed them and the SA from as much power as possible.

The fact is the Freikorps did stand out for a long time in German politics, thats why they only fit uneasily into the right, and were always spurned up until the right felt they were needed.

Their , anticapitalist, anti-socialist and non-traditionalist economic thought kept them out of the mainstream. Had they come into power, it would have been different than socialists, Nazis or rightists. It would have been like Italy's failed Corporatism, probably with cronyism entrenched upon war experience. Think of what the Italian squadristis wanted to do until Mussolini found their policies distasteful.

[Ruthlesstyrant]

Imagine the Turkish scenario - the treaty is rejected, and a total mobilisation in the homeland takes place. Do not forget that the population of Anatolia numbered just around 10 million after WW1, if I am right, and they still were able to win the war and achieve a more favorable outcome for them. On the other hand, the treaty of Sèvres was far harsher on the Turks and the Allies didn't invade Turkey themselves but just supported the Greeks. But still, if you can mobilise the populace then it perhaps would become very costy for the Allies to occupy Germany.

I said pseudo-Nazis, because while they will not dislike Jews, they will be violently anti-communist.

I'd say rather "Nazis Light" because they would probably not establish a super-totalitarian dictatorship and they wouldn't exterminate the Jews the way it happened - but they still disliked or hated them.

[Max Sinister]

People were starving during the war, and were pretty tired of it. And as said, the Turks didn't have to fight all the Allies combined.

[Johnnyreb]

Actually, after 1918, the French occupied a large section of Germany for quite a long time. I am not aware of any evidence they co-operated with the Freikorps, the Spartacists or any armed group of that sort.

I don't see why the Allies should co-operate with thugs like that, in fact its against their interest to have a bunch of armed ex-soldiers running around. Again, drawing a modern parallel, the business would be to get the civil police force on its feet.

The British certainly couldn't cope with occupying Germany: They didn't have enough men. Also, would the Americans stay to occupy? They wanted to go home and wanted nothing from Europe except money. It would have been politically unacceptable to leave US troops in Europe as hostages to fortune.

By the way, food ships were allowed into Hamburg throughout the blockade.

[HueyLong]

But if you're talking full occupation, and communist insurgencies everywhere (which if the allies pushed further in than they did, would happen), they have to cooperate with someone. France lost pplenty of popular support and plenty of manpower, not to mention money. If they want to hold Germany down, they are going to need German help.