Morgenthau Plan, 1919

George Carty · Aug 7, 2005

The Treaty of Versailles failed largely because it created a lot of weak ministates which were only viable if Germany was artificially kept disarmed. Since war-weary Allied electorates would not allow the Allied countries to perpetually stand guard over Germany, threatening to invade if it tried to re-arm (eg the French government which occupied the Ruhr was defeated at the next election).

What would have happened if the Allied leaders realized this, and therefore decided that the only answer was to deindustrialize Germany and thus permanently destroy its capacity to make war?

aktarian · Aug 7, 2005

George Carty said:
What would have happened if the Allied leaders realized this, and therefore decided that the only answer was to deindustrialize Germany and thus permanently destroy its capacity to make war?

Different conditions, different political outlook.

First of all Entente wasn't occupying Germany so short of renewing war and occupying it they can't deindustrialise it.

Second of all I think such concepts weren't "in the game" at that period.

David S Poepoe · Aug 7, 2005

So much for reparations I would think. I believe this point, the reparations, was of particular importance to the French.

I disagree that Versailles failed in its creation of "a lot of weak ministates which were only viable if Germany was artificially kept disarmed". I think this a relatively bizarre idea, particularly since Versailles strictly had to deal with Germany. There was also the Treaty of Trianon, which probably created most of the 'weak ministates' you are thinking about.

George Carty · Aug 7, 2005

David S Poepoe said:
So much for reparations I would think. I believe this point, the reparations, was of particular importance to the French.

I disagree that Versailles failed in its creation of "a lot of weak ministates which were only viable if Germany was artificially kept disarmed". I think this a relatively bizarre idea, particularly since Versailles strictly had to deal with Germany. There was also the Treaty of Trianon, which probably created most of the 'weak ministates' you are thinking about.

By "Versailles" I was really talking about the whole kaboodle, including Saint-Germain and Trianon.

But my point is that no previous treaty forcing the disarmament of any state had ever worked in modern times:

* Napoleon tried to forcibly disarm Prussia - and failed
* The Crimean War Allies tried to ban Russia from building a Black Sea Fleet - and failed

The ministates created as a result of Saint-Germain and Trianon (not to mention Brest-Litovsk, which the Allies would hardly reverse as they didn't want to throw Poland to the Bolshevik wolves) meant that once Germany was re-armed, Central and Eastern Europe would naturally fall into its lap...

George Carty · Aug 7, 2005

aktarian said:
Different conditions, different political outlook.

First of all Entente wasn't occupying Germany so short of renewing war and occupying it they can't deindustrialise it.

I am proposing that the Entente did continue the war until Germany was occupied.

(Without deindustrialization, occupation would be pointless as the Germans would naturally seek revenge as soon as the occupation ended. This wasn't a problem after WWII because fear of the Soviet colossus kept West Germans loyal to the Western allies - no similar situation exists in 1919.)

aktarian · Aug 7, 2005

George Carty said:
I am proposing that the Entente did continue the war until Germany was occupied.

And how likely is that?

chronos · Aug 7, 2005

If that had been the case Versailles would have been rejected by Germany, which it nearly was, Matthias Erzburger its principle advocate probably arrested, and a huge outcry not only in Germany arising the "The Allies had not kept their word of Peace with Justice".

Then anything could have happened.

The US. army had largely gone home, the last troops leaving Brest just after Versailles was signed. Woodrow Wilson for domestic reasons needed to demobilise as fast as possible.

Also its too late the Bolsheviks are in power in Russia and the Germans may well call them in.

There will be huge domestic problems in Britain and France restarting the war, and there may well be mutinies in the British army.

Haig himself warned of this, saying that his troops didn't mind fighting to win the war, but not for endless moves into Germany.

A problem is Wilson - he may not return (and Congress may not allow him to).
He believed in "Self-Determination" FOR Germany (it's a nation) but not for A-H (it's not a nation).
The break-up of A-H, - the treaties of Trianon and St.Germain are very much his personal baby. He wanted to create nation states with clearly defined boundaries of national lines there.
Of course, you couldn't, but he wanted to use this 9and Prohibition) to get a Third term in the US.
(Lloyd-George - "but we never intended this idiot to believe this, it was just propaganda to get him to fight the war")

Over Germany Wilson would not allow it to be broken up.

Another problem is the Reparations, which the allies wanted and needed. No industry in Germany - no money for Reparation payments.

Of couse there is a simple answer, if the allies had manage to restrain their self-righteousness, as well as controlling Wilson, and left A-H intact, there wouldnot be a problem. Arthur Balfour, the British Conservative leader had warned of this andnot a few French were agianst it as they saw it utterly destroyed the balance of Power in Europe and germany would dominate these weak states.

If the war goes on till the autumn of 1920 as the British General Staff thought it would, then there could conceivably be a Central Powers win.

George Carty · Aug 7, 2005

David S Poepoe said:
So much for reparations I would think. I believe this point, the reparations, was of particular importance to the French.

Pillage Germany's factories, before destroying them...

NapoleonXIV · Aug 7, 2005

George Carty said:
Pillage Germany's factories, before destroying them...

Would there be enough left after the occupation? Would there be that much that's all that mobile in the first place? How much would sabotage by the Germans affect this?

I can't help but think this whole idea would be terribly expensive for the victors and accomplish little more than ripping the economic heart out of Europe. One great benefactor would be the US, which most of Western Europe wouldn't mind all that much, but the other would be the new USSR, which promoted much more ambiguity in opinion.

benedict XVII · Aug 7, 2005

You don't need to go all the way into Germany. Occupying the left bank of the Rhine and detaching it from Germany would achieve much towards structurally weakening it. As the offensive was going end of October 1914, it would probably not have taken that much time to get there.

Besides, I've always thought one of the big differences between 1918 and 1945 (besides the SU threat), was that the Germans did not see the image of their military defeat with their own eyes in 1918. It all happened far away, which made it easier for populists like Hitler to claims Germany had not been defeated, but betrayed by Jews, Communists, etc. Some fighting on German soil could have sobered the German population.

Bu that's just a thought...

chronos · Aug 7, 2005

There are several AH time lines which can come from this;-

German victory. The allies reject Wilson's armistice plan as too harsh, as if it is known demolition of German industry is intended it will be rejected.
The war goes on into 1920.
Meanwhile Wilson carries out his treat to start seperate peace negotiations.

German victory. War starts again after armistice of six months. Goes on till 1920. german Left comes quickly into line as their factories are theatened. Wilson backs out.

Bolshevik revolution. The bolsheviks are called in. The German Left push out the moderate socialists for laying them open to Cartheginian peace. Now revolutionary war against British and French armies. British and french armies crack.

The USSSA. Britain and France can't repay loans and default on them as defeated. AS American financial capital betted on allied victory, economy goes down, revolution.

America needed the reparations so the allies could repay their war debts.

benedict XVII · Aug 7, 2005

chronos said:
The USSSA. Britain and France can't repay loans and default on them as defeated. AS American financial capital betted on allied victory, economy goes down, revolution.

America needed the reparations so the allies could repay their war debts.

I read somewhere the whole issue of reparations was inflated by German diplomacy, as they were in fact proportionnally much less than what had been imposed on France after 1870. Can't find my source again, tough. Anybody has any thought on that?

George Carty · Aug 8, 2005

benedict XVII said:
You don't need to go all the way into Germany. Occupying the left bank of the Rhine and detaching it from Germany would achieve much towards structurally weakening it.

Yes but as soon as the Allied armies shrink back to their peacetime sizes, there'll be pressure to "bring the troops home" - and as soon as the Allied troops do leave the Rhineland will rejoin Germany. Hence my suggestion that Germany must be thoroughly trashed in a way that will take decades, if not centuries, to recover...

Wozza · Aug 8, 2005

chronos said:
If that had been the case Versailles would have been rejected by Germany, which it nearly was, Matthias Erzburger its principle advocate probably arrested, and a huge outcry not only in Germany arising the "The Allies had not kept their word of Peace with Justice".

Then anything could have happened.

The US. army had largely gone home, the last troops leaving Brest just after Versailles was signed. Woodrow Wilson for domestic reasons needed to demobilise as fast as possible.

Also its too late the Bolsheviks are in power in Russia and the Germans may well call them in.

There will be huge domestic problems in Britain and France restarting the war, and there may well be mutinies in the British army.

Haig himself warned of this, saying that his troops didn't mind fighting to win the war, but not for endless moves into Germany.

A problem is Wilson - he may not return (and Congress may not allow him to).
He believed in "Self-Determination" FOR Germany (it's a nation) but not for A-H (it's not a nation).
The break-up of A-H, - the treaties of Trianon and St.Germain are very much his personal baby. He wanted to create nation states with clearly defined boundaries of national lines there.
Of course, you couldn't, but he wanted to use this 9and Prohibition) to get a Third term in the US.
(Lloyd-George - "but we never intended this idiot to believe this, it was just propaganda to get him to fight the war")

Over Germany Wilson would not allow it to be broken up.

Another problem is the Reparations, which the allies wanted and needed. No industry in Germany - no money for Reparation payments.

Of couse there is a simple answer, if the allies had manage to restrain their self-righteousness, as well as controlling Wilson, and left A-H intact, there wouldnot be a problem. Arthur Balfour, the British Conservative leader had warned of this andnot a few French were agianst it as they saw it utterly destroyed the balance of Power in Europe and germany would dominate these weak states.

If the war goes on till the autumn of 1920 as the British General Staff thought it would, then there could conceivably be a Central Powers win.

Chronos

you are obssessed with the possibility of secret German victory in WW1!
You are right that Us and Britain will not agree to the proposal, but wrong in the particulars

1. British forces intervene in Russia in the 1919-21 period, so could intervene in Germany
2. The French do occupy Germany, in 1923, and also I believe earlier, but would have to check
3. Always the killer - the Germans have to eat.

zoomar · Aug 8, 2005

Wozza said:
Chronos

you are obssessed with the possibility of secret German victory in WW1!
You are right that Us and Britain will not agree to the proposal, but wrong in the particulars

1. British forces intervene in Russia in the 1919-21 period, so could intervene in Germany
2. The French do occupy Germany, in 1923, and also I believe earlier, but would have to check
3. Always the killer - the Germans have to eat.

I agree. Although it might make an interesting fictional AH, there is no way ANY German government could politically have re-initiated hostilities after accepting the armistice of 1918. The population considered the war over, troops had melted away, discipline was disappearing, and problems with rebellious local soldier's and sailor's soviets were rampant. Plus, since the blockade had not ended your 3rd point is the killer.

benedict XVII · Aug 8, 2005

Wozza said:
Chronos

2. The French do occupy Germany, in 1923, and also I believe earlier, but would have to check

The Armistice convention foresaw the occupation of the left bank of the Rhine, including bridgeheads in Cologne, Coblence, Mainz and Kehl. Those territories were occupied until the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.

The French reoccupied the Rhineland in 1923-24, together with the Belgians. And no war was fought, though civil disobedience was widespread.

Click to expand...