How would you have dealt with Germany post WW1?

[TDM]

We can argue the moral side of things forever. As a German I am obviously biased but it just feels like that Britain and France still struggle to acknowledge their role and responsibility. French crimes in A-L or the suppport for the ethnic-cleansing plans that Russia had in mind are prime examples.

On the practical side its fairly obvious that:

a) Britain and France did a terrible job as hegemons of Europe.

I'm not sure what the point this is making is, are you arguing German would have been better (also Britain never went for Hegemony, our policy is to avoid their being one after all as we know we're never going to be a continental power). For instance the last time France gave it go we helped bring them down. Either way since neither France or Britain became European Hegemons after ToV I'm not sure what the relevance is?

b) That Britain and France need Germany to keep the Soviets contained.

Not really, in 1919 russia's gearing up for civil war in which we got involved directly in. Plue we created a bunch of buffer states in eastern europe. It not until way later the idea that Germnay would be some anti communist balwalk. So not rlevent to ToV

c) Britain and France were structurally unable to enforce OTLs treaty.

Maybe no in 1933, but we did so earlier (the whole occupation fo teh Rhineland)

d) Britain and France were unable to wage a serious war after WW1, without massive U.S. support.

yeah right.

But's what's your point here in regards to ToV, the ToV was put in place to reduce the chances of another war after all!

e) Any idea of breaking up Germany is a fantasy. The tiny percentage of Germans with seperatist symphaties would never accept enforced seperatism by foreigners.

That's certainly true though.

[

I can't find the source, where it is stated, the Germans were promised a peace along the 14 points. But here, indirectly, are the guide lines of the German delegation in Versailles. They mention the 14 point often and don't even consider something worse:

http://www.bundesarchiv.de/aktenreichskanzlei/1919-1933/0pa/sch/sch1p/kap1_2/para2_52.html

If something worse had to be considered, it would have been noted.

As for the disarmament, just look into the preamble of part V of the VT:

"In order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany undertakes strictly to observe the military, naval and air clauses which follow."

Despite having disarmed, no other country did or was willing to do so.

That's a document discussing the advice given to the German negotiating team? That's not really very good proof of what the other parties promised prior to the meetings? That might well have wt they wanted the discussion to be based on, but that wish doesn't mean it was going to be or that it not being so was a lie. Or more realistically the the 14 points were rather vague open to interpretation and didn't tackle the issue of the damage done to france and belgium territory

(see also disarmament)

 

[Faeelin]

Would Germany have been willing to accept Locarno-level ratification of its Eastern borders in exchange for a substantial US loan and preferential access to US markets? In the interwar period Austria and Danzig probably would have approved a referendum on joining Germany.

Posen and the Corridor probably should have been subject to plebiscites.

Since the Corridor and Posen were demographically Polish, I don't know how much a plebiscite helps... If

Are we going to give Berlin a plebiscite on joining Poland?

I don't know why we assume Germany must be coddled and the Polish people treated like supplicants.

 

[Anchises]

1)I'm not sure what the point this is making is, are you arguing German would have been better (also Britain never went for Hegemony, our policy is to avoid their being one after all as we know we're never going to be a continental power). For instance the last time France gave it go we helped bring them down. Either way since neither France or Britain became European Hegemons after ToV I'm not sure what the relevance is?

2) Not really, in 1919 russia's gearing up for civil war in which we got involved directly in. Plue we created a bunch of buffer states in eastern europe. It not until way later the idea that Germnay would be some anti communist balwalk. So not rlevent to ToV

3) Maybe no in 1933, but we did so earlier (the whole occupation fo teh Rhineland)

4) yeah right.

But's what's your point here in regards to ToV, the ToV was put in place to reduce the chances of another war after all!


5) That's certainly true though.

Numbers added by me for clarifying my reply. Phoneposting.

1) You don't see France and Britain as hegemons because they failed so spectacularly. Sure, Britain pretended to be about balance of power but how is that reflected in the ToV?

The ToVs main motive was revanchism. Crippling Germany so much, permanently shattered any illusions of a balance of power. Especially because the Soviet Union was an international pariah. The post-war order that was created, clearly relied on British and French backing. Who was the counterweight to the GB-France alliance?

From a realpolitik PoV its fairly obvious, that the Western Entente reached a hegemonic position after WW1. They were happy to use this position, to shoot down any German attempts of shaking of the ToV. At least when it were democrats who asked nicely.

As soon as Hitler came to power, it became fairly obvious that neither France nor Britain were willing or able to defend the order they created. Great Britain was busy controlling India and France was burnt out.

You don't see Great Britain and France as hegemons because they failed to do the job their victory demanded. France and Britain dodged responsibility for Europe and shit massively spiraled out of control.

And yes, a German victory would have been better. The Germans wouldn't have allowed the horrible crimes of the Soviets in Eastern Europe. Also we certainly wouldn't have seen a WW2 equivalent, Germany would have intervened sooner.

Sure, Germany wouldn't have been a squeaky clean democratic power but they were inevitably developing towards true democracy. Germany would have brought the stability that France and Britain were unable to uphold.

The only other positive option I see is getting the Americans truly involved after WW1. Only the Germans or the Americans could have brought the necessary stability. France and Britain were not up to the job, this was caused by structural reasons I don't see going away if WW1 goes down roughly like OTL.

2) Yeah and how did the intervention work out? It was also fairly obvious, that neither France nor Great Britain were able to back up the cordon sanitaire with anything but stern diplomatic notes.

Also there is a real danger that Germany goes communist, if that happens Europe is truly fucked even sooner than IOTL.

3) The occupation of the Rhineland was a failure. Britain and France were divided on it and massive American pressure forced France to back down. Also none of the French imperial fantasies came to fruitition and the french appetite for military action was permanently quenched.

Hitler succeded in 1933 because the German politicians prior to him tried to play by the rules. As soon as these people were dead, rotting in KZs or hiding in exile France and Britain shied away from devisive action.

4) Decison makers in France and Britain knew, or should have known at least, that they won only due to U.S. support.

As soon as the USA retreated into isolationism, it should have been obvious that the current order wasn't sustainable.

After the failed affair in the Rhineland it was obvious.

Instead of doing something, either placating Germany or take decisive action, France and Britain sat on their hands and did nothing while Weimar fell apart.

5) We finally agree on something !

 

[TDM]

.

Its really strange that Hitler was weak in the few years that Weimar and the economy functioned properly. The only logical conclusion can be to make Weimar and the economy even more dysfunctional...

and yet the reparations were put in place and most felt at the beginning of that period, including all the the territory issues, limitations in the army and not at the end (this included occupying the rhineland). Germany funded the reparations by loans (in fact during teh 20's got more in in loans than paid out, which means the former entente actually paid the reparations! And it's the great depression leading to the end of loans but also pause in reparation demands and then restructuring of that is in full swing making Weimar that economically dysfunctional leading up to 33 and step had already been taken to reduce the impact of the Reparations. huh.

There's also the basic point that you seem to be assuming that the weimar economy was only shaky because of the reparations, this is not shown (in fact a above foreign loads more than compensates for them). There's also the point that actually we all went through the great depression, and others also left WW1 with large amount of debt or other economic hits.

So this a-priori logical chain "Debt repayment - goto - economic failure - goto - Hitler" just isn't shown.

You can trust me, when I say that we cover Hitler and the reasons for his rise to power extensively in Germany. Every serious historian agrees that Hitler won despite his anti-semitism and his belligerent rhetoric. Sure, there was a militant bedrock of hardcore nationalists/anti-semites but the dysfunctionality of Weimar was the big selling point of the NSDAP.

I don't doubt it, but that doesn't really address my points. Aso if anti-semitism and belligerence was so intrinsically off putting what happened? Also since a lot of his belligerence was aimed at the ToV and the injustices of WW1 ending as it did, what's your point regarding the bad feeling over the ToV again?

Germans aren't inherently evil (hard to believe I know).

Oh please. You said something similar in the last thread as well, but I see you still haven't recognised the irony of beating that strawman while also basically arguing that Germany's subsequent invasion of all and sundry 1939+ was somehow a direct outcome of the ToV 20 years earlier as if Germany has no agency and invasions being the only way to go

 

[Faeelin]

It's an interesting thought experiment to go to Versailles in 1919 and say:

"Just so you know, in twenty years from the treaty you are passing, a Germany angry over having to pay reparations for causing this war, and having to cede territory with Polish people, will unite under someone far worse than the Kaiser. He will plan to kill every Jew on earth, burn the cities of the east and reduce the Slavs to slaves, and turn the western nations into puppets at best."

Do people think the response would have been, "Gosh, maybe we are too harsh on Germany?" Or would it have been "Yea, let's break this country up."

 

[Tyr Anazasi]

Since the Corridor and Posen were demographically Polish, I don't know how much a plebiscite helps... If

Are we going to give Berlin a plebiscite on joining Poland?

I don't know why we assume Germany must be coddled and the Polish people treated like supplicants.

Posen, yes, Corridore, only if you count the Kashubs being Poles. As they were divided in three factions, one pro Germany, one pro Poland and one neutral, it's obviously no Polish majority. In any case a plebiscite would have brought a result. Considering the results in Upper Silesia I severely doubt a Polish victory there.

Berlin was never Polish. Considering Warsaw had been Prussian for some time, it would be much more justified to make a plebiscite there. If you argue this way.

It's an interesting thought experiment to go to Versailles in 1919 and say:

"Just so you know, in twenty years from the treaty you are passing, a Germany angry over having to pay reparations for causing this war, and having to cede territory with Polish people, will unite under someone far worse than the Kaiser. He will plan to kill every Jew on earth, burn the cities of the east and reduce the Slavs to slaves, and turn the western nations into puppets at best."

Do people think the response would have been, "Gosh, maybe we are too harsh on Germany?" Or would it have been "Yea, let's break this country up."

Versailles was the harshest possible peace. Every harsher treaty would have led to the continuation of the war and the eventual mutiny of Entente armies. Together with Germany becoming communistic.

 

[TDM]

1) You don't see France and Britain as hegemons because they failed so spectacularly.

Show me where France an Britain attempted to become European Hegemons post 1919 (in fact maybe define what you mean by the term first)

Sure, Britain pretended to be about balance of power but how is that reflected in the ToV?

You mean re Germany? You seem to be assuming that Germany has a automatic rightful place as being key part to the Power even after WW1, to be blunt why?

The ToVs main motive was revanchism. Crippling Germany so much, permanently shattered any illusions of a balance of power. Especially because the Soviet Union was an international pariah. The post-war order that was created, clearly relied on British and French backing. Who was the counterweight to the GB-France alliance?

America, the LN basically it's not an obvious German shaped hole (or se above). I'll be honest all this seem based on the assumption that Germany is somehow owed all this. And well OK, but considering we just come out of WW1?

From a realpolitik PoV its fairly obvious, that the Western Entente reached a hegemonic position after WW1. They were happy to use this position, to shoot down any German attempts of shaking of the ToV. At least when it were democrats who asked nicely.

Or maybe that just wanted germany to stick to the reparations (you know like France did after 1871), and don't accept this a-priori point that Germany must be there to counter balance hegemon that I;m not even sure existed.

As soon as Hitler came to power, it became fairly obvious that neither France nor Britain were willing or able to defend the order they created. Great Britain was busy controlling India and France was burnt out.

So what's your point in a perfect world we should have invaded and crushed germany, and not doing so was a failure? ist also again assumes that Britain and France must be the policeman of Europe preventing Hitler. How about Germany doesn't put Hitler in place. I mean com on at some point it's not Britain and France's fault

You don't see Great Britain and France as hegemons because they failed to do the job their victory demanded. France and Britain dodged responsibility for Europe and shit massively spiraled out of control.

Yes because France and Britain voted Hitler in, etc. as above Germany has to take responsibility for it own action. Whats your point here that because France and Britain didn't rule Europe with an irons fist keeping Germany down Hitler magically lept into being and Germany stared invading everyone.

And yes, a German victory would have been better. The Germans wouldn't have allowed the horrible crimes of the Soviets in Eastern Europe. Also we certainly wouldn't have seen a WW2 equivalent, Germany would have intervened sooner.

Ah so your argument is Germany would have been nicer then the future soviets who came later than the outbreak of WW1 and who came to power primarily because of the collapse of Russia having fought Germany for 3.5 years in WW1. I also like if you just let us win in WW1 there no WW2, score. I don't know, how about Germany just doesn't start WW2? Oh and course Germany was all lovely during WW1 no war crimes or nothing! I also like the assumption that Germany taking over it's new empire would have been all lovely and nice.

Sure, Germany wouldn't have been a squeaky clean democratic power but they were inevitably developing towards true democracy. Germany would have brought the stability that France and Britain were unable to uphold.

Wow really so what you're saying is we should have really looked at Germany invading France through Belgium as opportunity for Europe wide peace and stability!

The only other positive option I see is getting the Americans truly involved after WW1. Only the Germans or the Americans could have brought the necessary stability. France and Britain were not up to the job, this was caused by structural reasons I don't see going away if WW1 goes down roughly like OTL.

Really and what are the specific qualities and qualifications that among all european nations Germany alone has for bring stability to europe, even better which of them had they displayed up to that point?

2) Yeah and how did the intervention work out? It was also fairly obvious, that neither France nor Great Britain were able to back up the cordon sanitaire with anything but stern diplomatic notes.

and yet they don't really come west until lets see, oh yeah Germany makes a deal with them in 38 to split poland, giveing the rest of the world something else to think about in 1939 when they go into Finland and then invades them 3 years later.

Also there is a real danger that Germany goes communist, if that happens Europe is truly fucked even sooner than IOTL.

again this seem to kind of assumes Germany is some kid of inherent pillar of European stability, one we all fail without.

3) The occupation of the Rhineland was a failure. Britain and France were divided on it and massive American pressure forced France to back down. Also none of the French imperial fantasies came to fruitition and the french appetite for military action was permanently quenched.

I can't really answer this as you seem to be talking about something else altogether. The occupation that start in 1918 was there to maintain the reparations, (as was the later occupation of the Ruhr). France imperial fantasies, what are you talking about. Yes your right France didn't successfully carve an empire out of German territory, I guess that failed to do the thing they didn't set out to do?

Also your point against seems to be because france failed to be a rapious iron fist in Europe they failed, I think you failed to learn the lessons that most did fo WW1!

Hitler succeeded in 1933 because the German politicians prior to him tried to play by the rules. As soon as these people were dead, rotting in KZs or hiding in exile France and Britain shied away from decisive action.

Hitler succeeded because he was elected and then followed. aslo yeah your right Britain and France didn't act immediately, but again "you didn't stop me" isn't really a very good defence? But OK what 10 years after 1933 we taking decisive action do you consider this all in all a good thing?

4) Decison makers in France and Britain knew, or should have known at least, that they won only due to U.S. support.

As soon as the USA retreated into isolationism, it should have been obvious that the current order wasn't sustainable.

Again what current order? Also I don't get your point, you on one hand blaming France and Britain for allowing WW2 to start because we could keep a lid on Germany (although it would have been better if Germany had won in WW1), in a thread where yoru decrying the harshness of the ToV, but also saying we couldn't do that anyway because without the US we're paper tigers?!

After the failed affair in the Rhineland it was obvious.

see above

Instead of doing something, either placating Germany or take decisive action, France and Britain sat on their hands and did nothing while Weimar fell apart.

at some point it Germany's responsibility for the collapse of the prior german government and election of the new one, also what are you suggesting "oh forget all the debt, including te lions we gave you to pay of the previous debt" (although to an extent that's actually what we went with) or "here have lots more loans to pay the loans you say you can't pay, the loans we gave you to pay the previous debt you said you couldn't pay" or how about "nah we taking over".

5) We finally agree on something !

Simple law of averages means it had to happen at some point !

 

[TDM]

...


Versailles was the harshest possible peace.

Every harsher treaty would have led to the continuation of the war and the eventual mutiny of Entente armies. Together with Germany becoming communistic.

Hang on entente armies are going to mutiny and germany is going to have communist revolution? (entente armies were not about to mutiny anyway)

either way a harsher treaty may have lead to a continuation of the war but that itself would have led to a harsher result (and likely a harsher treaty afterwards). Also the whole stop or we risk going communist is a threat that doesn't relay work since it is only made in the context of what Russia ended up as. At the time it just looks like German society is about to break down. And while yes that's not good for Germany's neighbours as well as Germany, that is also a threat that kind of loses it edge if you just fought a total war for 4 years over 20% of your land.

It's also not quite the forgone conclusion as it's often made out to to be. Yes there were active communists in Germany but there were other groups. Given any further war is going to involve entente troops occupying Germany you can't just point at Russia and say 'look that's what happens if you keep going, only image it closer and with better infrastructure and internal cohesion', since the situation is different.


Either way still a mess. And this is the key point to all this I never get.


"the treaty of Versaille was massively unfair, Germany was treated so unjustly", is the argument.

Only my response is you mean where Germany lost a war but did not get invaded, burnt to the ground occupied, split up, suffer complete internal collapse, civil war and/or have a new regime forced on you?


Frankly considering the likely other outcomes in 1918 Germany got lucky!

With special irony points being awarded as later German war myths being supported by the fact that it didn't feel like they'd lost!

 

[Anchises]

and yet the reparations were put in place and most felt at the beginning of that period, including all the the territory issues, limitations in the army and not at the end (this included occupying the rhineland). Germany funded the reparations by loans (in fact during teh 20's got more in in loans than paid out, which means the former entente actually paid the reparations! And it's the great depression leading to the end of loans but also pause in reparation demands and then restructuring of that is in full swing making Weimar that economically dysfunctional leading up to 33 and step had already been taken to reduce the impact of the Reparations. huh.

I really don't see how making Germany dependent on short term loans is supporting your argument. It actually explains why the Great Depression hit Germany so hard.

Also you conveniently ignore stuff like crippling the economy by impounding 90% of the merchant fleet and then limiting its size.

There's also the basic point that you seem to be assuming that the weimar economy was only shaky because of the reparations, this is not shown (in fact a above foreign loads more than compensates for them). There's also the point that actually we all went through the great depression, and others also left WW1 with large amount of debt or other economic hits.

So this a-priori logical chain "Debt repayment - goto - economic failure - goto - Hitler" just isn't shown.

Yup but Germany went from starvation to hyperinflation-starvation-civil-war. Followed by a very brief period of shaky stability that was quickly ended by an existential economic crisis and a looming period of renewed civil war. So its questionable to equate the economic crisis in France and Britain with the one in Germany.

I don't doubt it, but that doesn't really address my points. Aso if anti-semitism and belligerence was so intrinsically off putting what happened? Also since a lot of his belligerence was aimed at the ToV and the injustices of WW1 ending as it did, what's your point regarding the bad feeling over the ToV again?

Starvation, hyperinflation, civil war, complete failure of the political system, diplomatic isolation, foreign invasion, suppression of ethnic Germans in neighboring countries and existential economic crisis. Are you really trying to deny that economic depression and lack of political perspective breed extremism?

Oh please. You said something similar in the last thread as well, but I see you still haven't recognised the irony of beating that strawman while also basically arguing that Germany's subsequent invasion of all and sundry 1939+ was somehow a direct outcome of the ToV 20 years earlier as if Germany has no agency and invasions being the only way to go

I am not denying German agency and I freely admit all the German crimes. I don't see how that excludes talking about the underlying reasons, of which the ToV was the most important reason.

Show me where France an Britain attempted to become European Hegemons post 1919 (in fact maybe define what you mean by the term first)

You mean re Germany? You seem to be assuming that Germany has a automatic rightful place as being key part to the Power even after WW1, to be blunt why?

You don't see the inherent contradiction of these two statements? If a nation assumes that it has the authority to deny its rival a seat at the table, it acts hegemonic.

Also: According to your logic Germany wasn't wrong to start WW2. Might makes right in your world (apparently?), why shouldn't the Germans start another war?

The obvious answer is that suppressing a great power doesn't work and that holding a whole nation responsible for WW1 indefinitely is highly immoral but somehow this doesn't apply to Germany.

America, the LN basically it's not an obvious German shaped hole (or se above). I'll be honest all this seem based on the assumption that Germany is somehow owed all this. And well OK, but considering we just come out of WW1?

You seem to operate under the delusion that Germany is supposed to function to some high moral ideal but Britain and France are allowed to act according to realpolitik rules. Germany is owed nothing but constantly denying them their status as a great power obviously didn't work, otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion.

Or maybe that just wanted germany to stick to the reparations (you know like France did after 1871), and don't accept this a-priori point that Germany must be there to counter balance hegemon that I;m not even sure existed.

I don't know who threatened Anglo-French supremacy in the inter-war years. Italy? But because it is France and Great Britain they weren't hegemonic powers but well intentioned overlords?

So what's your point in a perfect world we should have invaded and crushed germany, and not doing so was a failure? ist also again assumes that Britain and France must be the policeman of Europe preventing Hitler. How about Germany doesn't put Hitler in place. I mean com on at some point it's not Britain and France's fault

In a perfect world WW1 wouldn't have happened. In the second best world Germany would have won early. Third place is no American isolationism. OTL basically is one of the worst outcomes for WW1.
I am also baffled by your naive outlook. When you win a war, impose crushing burdens on the defeated nations, and create a post-war order that is reliant on your military intervention, yes you have the damn responsibility to maintain this order. Otherwise you can't demand a peace that leaves your rival so unsatisfied that he will declare war again.

You seem to belief that Germany would have started WW2 regardless of how they are treated after WW1, which really seems like a thin justification for French and British failures.

Yes because France and Britain voted Hitler in, etc. as above Germany has to take responsibility for it own action. Whats your point here that because France and Britain didn't rule Europe with an irons fist keeping Germany down Hitler magically lept into being and Germany stared invading everyone.

"with an iron fist" Not letting the obviously expansionist dictatorship snowball and build up a huge military would have been a start. Britain and France ruled (central-)Europe with an iron-fist until maintaining that rule would have required a serious investment.

Ah so your argument is Germany would have been nicer then the future soviets who came later than the outbreak of WW1 and who came to power primarily because of the collapse of Russia having fought Germany for 3.5 years in WW1. I also like if you just let us win in WW1 there no WW2, score. I don't know, how about Germany just doesn't start WW2? Oh and course Germany was all lovely during WW1 no war crimes or nothing! I also like the assumption that Germany taking over it's new empire would have been all lovely and nice.

Oh man, bugger that Germany stopped Russia from its genocidal plans or France from its harebrained "natural border schemes" or tried to prevent Britain from a starvation blockade that violated international law. You drank the cool aid pretty hard tbh.

Either treat Germany as a (defeated) equal after WW1 or pay the price to keep them down. Weaseling out of your obligations as a victor is not acceptable.

Also a German victory would have butterflied away the Holodomor and other nastiness yes. Something France and Britain were very obviously unable to do.

Wow really so what you're saying is we should have really looked at Germany invading France through Belgium as opportunity for Europe wide peace and stability!

I guess in your ideal world Germany rolls over, so that Russia can dismantle A-H to genocide happily away? So that Russia and France then can invade Germany for maximum stability?

Really and what are the specific qualities and qualifications that among all european nations Germany alone has for bring stability to europe, even better which of them had they displayed up to that point?

Military and economic muscle, no overwhelming colonial "obligations" *cough cough*, geographic position etc.

and yet they don't really come west until lets see, oh yeah Germany makes a deal with them in 38 to split poland, giveing the rest of the world something else to think about in 1939 when they go into Finland and then invades them 3 years later.

The Soviets had to recover from WW1 too? As soon as they had the strength they searched for an opening and used it. Lets now imagine a TL where Germany actually cooperates with France and Britain. The Soviets couldn't have done what they did IOTL and you have proved my point, thank you very much.

again this seem to kind of assumes Germany is some kid of inherent pillar of European stability, one we all fail without.

Yeah, obviously? Just like France? Evidently the EU works where ToV-Europe doesn't?

I can't really answer this as you seem to be talking about something else altogether. The occupation that start in 1918 was there to maintain the reparations, (as was the later occupation of the Ruhr). France imperial fantasies, what are you talking about. Yes your right France didn't successfully carve an empire out of German territory, I guess that failed to do the thing they didn't set out to do?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhenish_Republic nooooooooo France never had designs to create a satellite state...
And the occupation obviously succeed in creating German resentment but apart from that? Enlighten me, how was the occupation successful.

Also your point against seems to be because france failed to be a rapious iron fist in Europe they failed, I think you failed to learn the lessons that most did fo WW1!

You really don't get it, do you?

There were 2 ways to European stability:

a) Cooperate with the German democrats, treat them like a great power and an equal. What the Allies did after WW2 (the horrible crimes obviously delayed this but it happened fairly quick).
b) Keep Germany down and subject them to oppression and humiliation. Intervene militarily when they do anything that violates your treaty.

You seem to assume that strangling Weimar in the crib and then doing nothing to stop the extremists somehow is the right way.

Hitler succeeded because he was elected and then followed. aslo yeah your right Britain and France didn't act immediately, but again "you didn't stop me" isn't really a very good defence? But OK what 10 years after 1933 we taking decisive action do you consider this all in all a good thing?

Ahhh yes, the obviously ill informed "Hitler was elected". You are aware that from 1930 onward Germany had various cabinets but was essentially a Presidential Dictatorship? Hitler never had a governing majority and ruled by Presidential decree until he completely took over when Hindenburg died?

Again what current order? Also I don't get your point, you on one hand blaming France and Britain for allowing WW2 to start because we could keep a lid on Germany (although it would have been better if Germany had won in WW1), in a thread where yoru decrying the harshness of the ToV, but also saying we couldn't do that anyway because without the US we're paper tigers?!

a) Be a harsh overlord and keep the defeated down.
b) Enable democrats through economic and political cooperation, either because you have democratic ideals or because you realize you don't have the strength to keep Germany down forever.

You have little idea about the political situation in Germany and you outright reject the possibility that a democratic Großdeutschland would have integrated into a peaceful Europe. Fair enough, not a well informed position but one can argue for it. Then, however "ruling with an iron fist" (more like defending the treaty you crafted with force) becomes a necessity.

at some point it Germany's responsibility for the collapse of the prior german government and election of the new one, also what are you suggesting "oh forget all the debt, including te lions we gave you to pay of the previous debt" (although to an extent that's actually what we went with) or "here have lots more loans to pay the loans you say you can't pay, the loans we gave you to pay the previous debt you said you couldn't pay" or how about "nah we taking over".

The problem seems to be that you have not enough knowledge about inter-war Germany tbh. Your constant downplaying of the reparations and stuff like "Hitler was elected" strongly suggest that.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

Versailles was the harshest possible peace. Every harsher treaty would have led to the continuation of the war and the eventual mutiny of Entente armies. Together with Germany becoming communistic.

Ah yes the Etente armies will somehow mutiny despite the fact the German has gotten its ass kicked six ways to Sunday morale is rock bottom and the Kaiserliche Marine is currently in the process of muntinying if you think the Entente armies will mutiny before the German war effort collapses wholesale. It won’t

 

[Halagaz]

Oh man, bugger that Germany stopped Russia from its genocidal plans or France from its harebrained "natural border schemes" or tried to prevent Britain from a starvation blockade that violated international law.

Huh? Please elaborate. The only genocidal plans I've heard of in the context of WWI were those of Germany's CP allies.

 

[TDM]

The problem seems to be that you have not enough knowledge about inter-war Germany tbh. Your constant downplaying of the reparations and stuff like "Hitler was elected" strongly suggest that.

Really and your position seems to be that Germany is either the destined rightful ruler of Europe by some kind of a-priori right and should recognised and treated as such and if only we had let Germany win all bad things post 1918 would have been avoided (the holodomor for fucks sake really). But at the same time France/Britain failed Europe by failing to keeping Germany down, because above all Germany despite being this great power for stability also isn't responsible for it own actions. Oh and somehow because Britain and France did not stop Germany they not only failed to stop WW2 but are also rapacious imperialists denying Germany it's due?

So yes it's all pretty standard "it's all everyone else's fault germany had no choice" but with added "you need us against the evil soviets"

Oh and Germany was treated as a defeated equal, ToV is how we did that, look at how Germany treated France in 1871, or how we all did in 1815.

But again that doesn't fit into the Germany "is so unfairly treated we can't be held responsible for our actions" narrative.

And you know what on another week fine, but one week after armistice day I'm sick of it, the C20th threat to european stability or life isn't the Soviets*, it isn't Britain or France getting it wrong, it's Germany deciding it wants what it feels is due to it. Oh and the EU, what does Germany want a prize for not invading it's neighbours? But that's the point because there is always another choice one that involves Germany taking the revolutionary step of not invading it's neighbours.

And you know what I don't even mind that Germany got a bit invade-y in abstract as countries go for it at times, history is full of it. France went for it, Britain can hardly be accused of being shy and retiring when it comes to creating empire. But own your own shit.


EDIT: but more irony points for evil British starvation blockade, against Germany who had spent years trying to get the same via u-boats. Oh and irony heaped on irony your going cite international law after Germany went with unrestricted submarine warfare?


*and even when they do the land grab of eastern europe what was the trigger for that? Why was it they even did so with the material help of the wallies?

 

[Ivoshafen]

Well, fuck, this thread seems to be an absolute hot box of hate and bad vibes, lemme throw out a poorly thought out and hastily written idea.

Personally, allow Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Russia (not the USSR as a whole) share the blame for the conflict, but honestly I feel as if I’m not one to sit here and say who did what as if I’m on some kind a pedestal. Hold plebiscites in the Sudetenland, AL, SH, for either joining Germany, their “home” nations, or independence. Allow Germany a respectable army, navy, so on and so forth. Hold plebecites in former AH territories on their future, independence, union with Austria, or some third option (perhaps union with Hungary). The war reparations should be shared among the guilty parties.

I’ll be back to actually make this make some sense and get my ideas out better.
But
Basically bring it down to public vote on territory shifts, make sure Germany isn’t drowned in debt.

 

[DracoLazarus]

Alright.
Here is my proposal, version 2 :

- France annexes Alsace-Lorraine.
- Belgium annexes Eupen and Malmedy, with the option should both accept it for Germany to buy the villages back for *middling sum*
- Poland annexes Poznania. The Vistula is internationalised, and so is the Niemen.
- Referenda to be held in West Prussia, Southeast Prussia, Upper Silesia and Schleswig-Holstein for national appartenance.
- Baden, Wurtemberg, Rhenania, the Saar and Bavaria are made independent from Germany, under Western occupation. Saar will be administrated by France.
- The Eastern bank of the Rhine will be demilitarised.
- Germany and the newly independent German states will pay reparations to the Allied Powers (primarily France and Belgium) for twenty years, representing a yearly proportion of their GDP comparable to the one France paid in the Franco-Prussian War.
- Germany will be allowed an army of 500 000 men, without tanks, artillery over a caliber of 200mm, or aviation. Baden and Wurtemberg will be allowed 100k each, and Rhenania and Bavaria 200k each.
- After five years of successful payment of reparations, the Allies will allow a referendum in Bavaria over whether or not to rejoin Germany. In case they rejoin their caps will be added to Germany's.
- After ten years of successful payment of reparations, the Allies will allow a referendum in Baden and Wurtemberg over whether or not to rejoin Germany. In case they rejoin their caps will be added to Germany's, but Baden will be demilitarised
- After fifteen years of successful payment of reparations, the Allies will allow a referendum in Rhenania over whether or not to rejoin Germany. In case they rejoin, their cap will be added to Germany's, and Rhenania be demilitarised.
- After the reparations are paid in full, a referendum will be held in the Saar over national appartenance (France, Germany, or independence). The peace treaty will expire at this point, and with it the army restrictions and demilitarisation.
- Should any of the newly formed Germanic nations decide for independence instead, it will cease paying reparations to the Allies.

- In the event of the creation of a League of Nations, Germany will be invited to join it from the start, as a member of the great power club.

The colonies and naval clause can go as per OTL.
I'd also allow the Japanese delegates equal treatment with the European ones.

 

[TDM]

Well, fuck, this thread seems to be an absolute hot box of hate and bad vibes, lemme throw out a poorly thought out and hastily written idea.

Personally, allow Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Russia (not the USSR as a whole) share the blame for the conflict, but honestly I feel as if I’m not one to sit here and say who did what as if I’m on some kind a pedestal. Hold plebiscites in the Sudetenland, AL, SH, for either joining Germany, their “home” nations, or independence. Allow Germany a respectable army, navy, so on and so forth. Hold plebecites in former AH territories on their future, independence, union with Austria, or some third option (perhaps union with Hungary). The war reparations should be shared among the guilty parties.

I’ll be back to actually make this make some sense and get my ideas out better.
But
Basically bring it down to public vote on territory shifts, make sure Germany isn’t drowned in debt.

just on this one point in bold and going by your list (so we'll include the USSR even though i'm not sure that's right but let's leave that aside)

We have

Russia, which no longer really exists as it did but is now very much under a new regime and who we just military involved ourselves in their ongoing civil war. .

Austria-Hungary, which no longer exists, but instead split into either newly created national territoires (as you describe) or Austria and Hungary both under pretty new regimes by 1919

Germany, which is still basically the same system in power as at the start of WW1, not had any enemy troops on it's land, not either under a new revolutionary govt and civil war or atomised into it's constituent parts. Ie is pretty fundamentally the same country it was in 1914 unlike the other two

One of these things is not like the other?


Or to put it another way it takes a certain perspective to look at AH and Russia in the immediate post-WW1 period and say hang on why do they get off so light compared to Germany.

 

[Anchises]

Really and your position seems to be that Germany is either the destined rightful ruler of Europe by some kind of a-priore right and should be treated as such and if only we had let Germany win all bad things post 1918 would have been avoided (the holodomor for fucks sake really), and that at the same time France/Britain failed Europe by failing to keeping Germany down, because above all Germany despite being this great power for stability also isn't responsible for it own actions.

So yes it's all pretty standard "it's all everyone else's fault germany had no choice"

Oh and Germany was treated as a defeated equal, ToV is how we did that, looks at how german treated France in 1871, and how we all did in 1815.

But again that doesn't fit into the Germany "is so unfairly treated we can't be held responsible for our actions narrative".

And you know what on another week fine, but one week after armistice day I'm sick of it, the C20th threat to european stability or life isnt the Soviets*, it isn't Britain or France getting it wrong, it's Germany deciding it wants what it feels is due to it. Oh and the EU, what do what a prize for not invading your neighbours. But that's the point because there is always another choice one that involves Germany taking the revolutionary step of not invading it's neighbours.

And you know what I don't even mind that Germany got a bit invade-y in abstract as countries go for it at times history is full of it, France went for it, Britain can hardly be accused of being shy and retiring when it come to creating empires. But own your own shit.


*anf even when they do the land grab of eastern europe what was the trigger for that?

Boiling down WW1 to "Germany invading its neighbours" already shows an astonishing lack of perspective, a narrow focus on the West and an unwillingness to understand the wider situation in Eastern Europe. You never even mention Russia or the invasion of Eastern Prussia because it doesn't really suit your narrative of German aggression. Or should we belief that France wouldn't have attacked Germany in a war with Russia? But sure, go ahead with the same old "Germany is the threat to European stability".

Harsh reality is that Britain and France were just fine with letting Europe go to shit after WW1. In a grand gesture Germany was declared guilty (for the same sins Britain and France were just as guilty off). Then they trampled on self-determination, as much as their American creditors allowed and immediately betrayed all the principles that people associated with the Entente. When push came to shove, they basically betrayed all their allies in Eastern and Central Europe and waited until Hitler rolled through Paris.

All powers in WW1 tried to dominate Europe, Britain and France happened to be on the winning side and did a terrible job in the inter-war period. There is a huge chunk of this forum that beliefs Germany would have done a better job, I happen to be one of these. Germany wasn't better or worse than France or Britain, I just can't stand this eternal meme of "the Entente was morally superior 11!!1!1!!!"

Eastern and Central Europe drowned in blood after WW1, if you really belief that the German Empire would have allowed that in its immediate neighborhood be my guest.

Huh? Please elaborate. The only genocidal plans I've heard of in the context of WWI were those of Germany's CP allies.

I guess ethnic cleansing would have been the better word. Russia essentially attempted ethnic cleansing in occupied Galicia. Imho A-H and Russia were about equal in their "war crimes level".

The massacres and deportations in Eastern Prussia also come to mind.

 

[TDM]

Boiling down WW1 to "Germany invading its neighbours" already shows an astonishing lack of perspective, a narrow focus on the West and an unwillingness to understand the wider situation in Eastern Europe. You never even mention Russia or the invasion of Eastern Prussia because it doesn't really suit your narrative of German aggression. Or should we belief that France wouldn't have attacked Germany in a war with Russia? But sure, go ahead with the same old "Germany is the threat to European stability".

You get that Germany declared war on Russia and France first yeah? And that Britain only declared war on Germany after Germany refused to withdraw from Belgium (which it had invaded on it's way to invading France)?

Oh look there was attempt by Britain to organise a conference over the whole AH/Serbia thing (you know while AH is mobilising), France and Italy like the idea, then Russia agrees, sounds good right, oh, ah yes Germany refuses.

Then AH declares war on Serbia, oh but look next day again Britain calls for international mediation, could work, whoops no AH ships shell Belgrade the day after. Remember this is also after Serbia agrees to all but one AH's demands post assassination (and the one being one no would).

Harsh reality is that Britain and France were just fine with letting Europe go to shit after WW1. In a grand gesture Germany was declared guilty (for the same sins Britain and France were just as guilty off). Then they trampled on self-determination, as much as their American creditors allowed and immediately betrayed all the principles that people associated with the Entente. When push came to shove, they basically betrayed all their allies in Eastern and Central Europe and waited until Hitler rolled through Paris.

Ah I see it's all France and Britain's fault that Germany rolled through Eastern and Central Europe, No possible other alternative to France and Britain stopping that happening say like Germany just not rolling through Central and Eastern Europe?

All powers in WW1 tried to dominate Europe, Britain and France happened to be on the winning side and did a terrible job in the inter-war period. There is a huge chunk of this forum that beliefs Germany would have done a better job, I happen to be one of these. Germany wasn't better or worse than France or Britain, I just can't stand this eternal meme of "the Entente was morally superior 11!!1!1!!!"

Eastern and Central Europe drowned in blood after WW1, if you really belief that the German Empire would have allowed that in its immediate neighborhood be my guest.

That sums it all up really, 'if only we'd let Germany take care of it all, eastern europe would have been so much happier under German rule"

What where you saying about astonishing lack of perspective


Also given the other point I responded when you talked about Eastern and central europe drowning in blood please tell you're not talking about 1938+?

Honest question when I first read that I assumed you must be talking about the interwar period as you couldn't possibly be so tone death as to be referring to 38+, but since you seem to blaming everyone else for Germany's little 1938+ tour, well... tell me I'm wrong?

 

[Anchises]

Ah I see ist all France and Britain's fault that Germany rolled through Eastern and central Europe, No possible other alternative to France and Britain stopping that happening say like Germany just not rolling through Central and Eastern Europe?




That sums it all up really, 'if only we'd let the Germany take care of it all'

what where you saying about astonishing lack of perspective


Aslo given the other point I responded when you talked about Eastern and central europe drowning in blood please tell you're not talking about 1938+?

Honest question when I first read that I assumed you must be talking about the interwar period as you could possibly be so tone death as to be referring to 38+, but since you seem to blaming everyone else for Germany's little 1938+ tour, well... tell me I'm wrong?

1) Yeah, no other bad shit happened in Central and Eastern Europe after WW1. Talk about a narrow perspective...

2) France and Britain very obviously didn't take care of it all.... What is your point ?

3) Are you really that narrow minded? Why would I mean 1938+

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_I

Revolutions of 1917-1923, the various "little massacres" in the emerging new nations etc.

Sykes-Picot screwed the ME. Trianon, Saint-Germain and Versailles screwed Europe.

There is a pretty consistent pattern of British and French influence that produces grave long-term problems for regional stability.

 

[pjmidd]

Oh dear this thread has gone down the same path as all the others on the subject. Lots of people ignoring the inconvenient truth, Germany lost, and somehow twisting things to allow a stronger Germany after WW1 than before and not having to pay for what it did ie Terms that suggest it actually won.
Lets just remember one thing , when the German Army retreated from Northern France and Belgium the High Command knew that they could no longer win and would have to seek some form of terms. Yet they deliberately engaged in a policy of scorched earth , destroying much that was civilian with no or little military value.
Did it somehow never occur to them that such an act made harsh terms inevitable ? That Belgium and France, at least, would want full compensation and measures to ensure Germany would never be able to do that again?
Let's also remember this is a war in which propaganda came to the fore, that the public saw the horrors nearly first hand via moving pictures for the first time, that terrible weapons such as poison gas ( which Germany introduced ) were used and some areas fought over are still dangerous today. This is not a war that was ever going to give the loser generous terms by 1916.

 

[TDM]

1) Yeah, no other bad shit happened in Central and Eastern Europe after WW1. Talk about a narrow perspective...

I'm well aware of it hence my question.

2) France and Britain very obviously didn't take care of it all.... What is your point ?

Again which bit are you talking about because you also blamed us for not stopping Germany in 1938? (so again you can see why i looked for clarification on the above)

3) Are you really that narrow minded? Why would I mean 1938+

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_I

Revolutions of 1917-1923, the various "little massacres" in the emerging new nations etc.

Sykes-Picot screwed the ME. Trianon, Saint-Germain and Versailles screwed Europe.

This is the same as 1 above (so see response to 1)? Also you might want to back off with the accusations regarding my knowledge of post 1918 eastern European trouble when yourself seem to jumping around the timeline rather a lot.

But why would you mean 1938+? Possibly because you just blamed Britain and France for not stopping Germany in 1938+

There is a pretty consistent pattern of British and French influence that produces grave long-term problems for regional stability.

While German action has done nothing but stabilize Europe

So again we come back to why doesn't Europe just submit to Germany, ironic given some of failures of Britain and France that you seem to be using to justify this position is the failure to instantly stop Germany from marching over eastern europe?

So it's "if only you let Germany have an empire in Europe there wouldn't have been the blood shed involved in Germany getting an empire in Europe, and by failing to instantly stop Germany getting an empire that reveals why Germany should have an empire in Europe".

Also the multi ethnic AH empire breaks apart, leading to issues yeah no shit. But it's up to France and Britain to fix all that, only of course france and Britain have just fought this massive gruelling, economy destroying 4 year industrial war yeah. (and also ignores that actually there were international attempt to head of bloodshed etc during that period).