How would you have dealt with Germany post WW1?

[woweed]

Give up their overseas colonies, give AL back to France, give Poland and Czechoslovakia up, along with all territory gained via the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and make them pay some token reparations. Say, 6.5 to 7 million destuchmarks. Enough to teach them a lesson, but hopefully not too much, so as to ensure Hitler's nationalism cannot find a home

 

[GDIS Pathe]

I completely disagree, to nearly every point.

An invasion of Germany back in 1918 would change the situation dramatically. The army of 1918 might have been beaten, but still managed to retreat in good order. An invasion of Germany, after a truce is asked for, would result in severe German resistance. If the Entente armies are willing to fight on, is another question though.

Are you referring to the same German army which collapsed under Fochs Hundred Days and now is facing Allied troops advancing from 4 separate fronts? The same one which had been surrendering en mass during the allied offensive? Germany didn't sue for an armistice because she could still fight she sued for an armistice because the Germans had lost A-H was gone Bulgaria was gone, the Ottomans were gone the Germans cannot fight the whole world if they tried they would have lost.

 

[NoMommsen]

Are you referring to the same German army which collapsed under Fochs Hundred Days and now is facing Allied troops advancing from 4 separate fronts? The same one which had been surrendering en mass during the allied offensive?
...

I assume he talks about these more than 4 million soldiers that had to be demobilized in their home garrisons from 1918 until about 1921, comming from the west as well as until 1921 from the east, where german soldiers had to keep on fighting against the soviets on the Entente's demand.

Only, that in case the Entente would keep on marching aka invading Germany, these soldiers would now :

• fight ON home ground
• fight FOR home ground
  • like preventing their women and daughters getting raped by these negro hordes the french bring in from some jungles ... or other very likely propaganda
• are aside from perhaps the most heavy weapons fully armed (though admitted very low on ammo)
• would quickly call their comrades back from the east

Well, ofc, against all these german stubborn insurgents you can turn all of central europe into a gas-poisend waste-land ... and then you would finally have reached your ultimate goal :

getting definitly rid of these ... germans.​

I often wonder why the germans of 1918 is refused what the germans of 1945 did :

despite having lost long ago
keep on fighting until complete defeat​

and at the change 1918/1919 the germans were - comparativly - in a much better situation than the change 1944/1945.

 

[Tyr Anazasi]

I assume he talks about these more than 4 million soldiers that had to be demobilized in their home garrisons from 1918 until about 1921, comming from the west as well as until 1921 from the east, where german soldiers had to keep on fighting against the soviets on the Entente's demand.

Only, that in case the Entente would keep on marching aka invading Germany, these soldiers would now :

• fight ON home ground
• fight FOR home ground
  • like preventing their women and daughters getting raped by these negro hordes the french bring in from some jungles ... or other very likely propaganda
• are aside from perhaps the most heavy weapons fully armed (though admitted very low on ammo)
• would quickly call their comrades back from the east

Well, ofc, against all these german stubborn insurgents you can turn all of central europe into a gas-poisend waste-land ... and then you would finally have reached your ultimate goal :

getting definitly rid of these ... germans.​

I often wonder why the germans of 1918 is refused what the germans of 1945 did :

despite having lost long ago
keep on fighting until complete defeat​

and at the change 1918/1919 the germans were - comparativly - in a much better situation than the change 1944/1945.

Indeed. In 1944 the US Army got a bloody nose, when they tried to invade German proper. The way to the German border had been fast, after they had finally broken the lines at the Normandy. When they attacked in the Hürtgen forest, they failed. The invasion of Germany could only happen in 1945, after there were more forces and after the Germans had spent much of their forces in the Ardennes offensive. Here the German army is not in the state of the Wehrmacht of 1944/45. A continuation of the war would be extremely bloody and costly. Too bloody and costly. The Entente powers knew that.

IMO the best move would have been to call the bluff and not sign Versailles. As I am the opinion, the Entente powers would not have been able to fight a war against Germany longer. The morale would have been too low. For what should GI Joe die?

 

[toolbox11742]

Hello all,

With the 100th anniversary of the end of the war, I have been very interested in WW1 subjects recently.

It seems the allies where stuck between a desire for revengement against Germany (the justification of which for Belgium and France was certainly deeply felt), yet feeling a need to keep them as a somewhat viable state to prevent the spread of Leninism into Western Europe

With perfect 20/20 perspective we know Leninism had a hard enough time holding on in Russia the next 10 years let alone successfully exporting it's doctrine anywhere else

Because Germany has emerged today as a thriving liberal democracy its hard to visualize them off the map; however their conduct in WW2 was an unlimited bad, the worst catastrophe in human history and to avoid that makes any future outcomes inevitably better than what Versailles bore

So with that perspective; no peace in 1918; use the French tank park and fresh American troops, drive to Berlin and force complete and unconditional surrender; followed by divided occupation for at least 25 years; so that the core of German political power and their coming of age youth have it firmly driven upon them that their militarism and barbarism will never be tolerated again

Should Leninsim remain an outbound threat (which it certainly emerged to be by 1939) then the state could perhaps be rearmed for defensive purposes

 

[BlondieBC]

This entire thread is based on hindsight. If we exclude all hindsight there is nothing wrong wit the ToV from a 1918/19 entente perspective.

And there is a reason why it is called 'miracle' at the Vistula. The Polish victory was not just due to Polish fighting spirit, but rather due to Soviet over extension and the incompetence of Stalin and the other red army commanders in the field.

Yes there was something wrong without hindsight. The USA was clearly not going to maintain a large standing army in Europe to enforce some treaty. And the British were quickly reverting to the pattern of "very large navy, colonial army plus a couple good corp". So Wilson should have known that his ideas would not be enforced over the long run by US troops. The UK should have know that like the post-Napoleonic era, it would need a group of reasonably happy nations and a workable balance of power. France should have know that it would have to enforce harsh terms on its own, if that was the path. And everyone knew the Soviets would be an issue, and that is why you see things like Joint USA/Japan operations in the Russian Far East.

And if you start here, you can get a better treaty. Obviously A-L goes back to France but nothing else. The reparations were too high. Keynes told the British as their chief adviser. Or you could have know that by the way it was calculated. Instead of using actual economic destruction in the war, the French also added the lost future productivity of wounded and killed Frenchmen. So pretty easy to get a smaller reparations. Also easy to understand the Germans can't pay in gold, so it is a small step to have the reparations in terms of coal, ships and other industrial goods. For example, the exporting of coal from the Saar would have been reasonable reparations when combined with the 'value' of the colonies. UK can still get the Navy plus some limited gold payments or goods transfers (dyes, chemicals, etc). Italy is out of luck since A-H fell, but there was not real reason to make Italy unhappy. Give Italy what it can hold in the Adriatic and some meaningful colonial concessions. Why not give Italy something like German East Africa. Or if not that, give Italy Tunisia, Give France something from the UK or Germany, and the UK can keep East Africa. A good old colonial swap.

So with just a few changes, we can get a basis of a treaty that will not wreck the European economy any more than the war did. Italy does not feel betrayed. Justified feeling IMO. Now we just have one more big issues, what to do with Russia. Obviously, no combination of Entente are going to conquer and hold Russia. Obviously socialism is a biggest remaining threat. So either France maintains a large army for the rest of time, or they need allies. These allies have to be A-H or Germany. A-H implodes, and I doubt you can put it back together by 6 months after the war, so we need Germany as a counter weight. This means limiting German losses in the east and/or allowing a merger with Austria.

It is not hard to get to the logic of a workable treaty. One really has to understand that if the treaty is harsh, then France alone has to contain the Soviets and potentially any nation the Soviets flip to their allies. So it is pretty easy to see where the treaty needs to go. We act like this is impossible, but after the Napoleonic wars, the terms on the French were actually quite mild. After the war between Prussia and Austria, the terms were mild. Same for the Crimean war. And even the terms for the Franco-Prussian war were mild compared to the ToV. It is just the pattern that existed for a few hundred years was broken, and the risk was realized in the maximum possible way with Hitler.

 

[BlondieBC]

Any plebiscites in Posen and the Corridor would've been in Poland's favor, I just think plebiscites would've provided greater legitimacy to territorial changes that would've happened either way. In the decade after 1918 about 70% of the German speakers in the areas in question left for Germany, and I suspect migration trends would be similar ATL. Every year after Versailles, a government in Berlin would've had less "oppressed Germans minorities" in Poland to whine about.

The Nazis spun lots of tall tales about oppressed Germans in Danzig and the corridor to drum up nationalist support from their propaganda, but as far as I know they didn't talk about Schleswig-Holstein and Silesia as much as the corridor, if at all. Silesia's coal would've been profitable for Germany, but it was harder to portray as "stolen land" after the matter had been settled by a vote of the population(s) in question.

The plebiscite will definitely make any land transfers more legitimate, but I don't think we can call it that specifically. The southern parts of East Prussia unexpectedly voted to stay German, and this may well happen in West Prussia. Or possibly even Posen. And if West Prussia is broken into multiple voting areas, it is pretty clear some go each way, or at least that is the wise way to bet. When looking at the chaos and civil war that is Russia and then looking at what one would expect to again be a strong and powerful nation, the safety can have a lot of appeal. We just can't take someone's mother tongue and assume they vote one way on these issues.

The same can be said about A-L if it is broken into multiple voting zones.

Edit: And it you want maximum legitimacy, allow Austria and the Sudetenland to vote on the same pattern as Posen and West Prussia. Given these four votes, there is a good chance that Germany is of about the same size after the war as before the war excluding A-L.

 

[Tyr Anazasi]

Only plebiscites were an adequate mean to legitimize border changes. However, I have to add, that despite the fact, that southern East Prussia was inhabited by Polish speaking people, these Masurians considered themselves as Germans, especially as they had a different culture than the Poles and a different faith, as they were/are protestants.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

I assume he talks about these more than 4 million soldiers that had to be demobilized in their home garrisons from 1918 until about 1921, comming from the west as well as until 1921 from the east, where german soldiers had to keep on fighting against the soviets on the Entente's demand.

Only, that in case the Entente would keep on marching aka invading Germany, these soldiers would now :

• fight ON home ground
• fight FOR home ground
  • like preventing their women and daughters getting raped by these negro hordes the french bring in from some jungles ... or other very likely propaganda
• are aside from perhaps the most heavy weapons fully armed (though admitted very low on ammo)
• would quickly call their comrades back from the east

Well, ofc, against all these german stubborn insurgents you can turn all of central europe into a gas-poisend waste-land ... and then you would finally have reached your ultimate goal :

getting definitly rid of these ... germans.​

I often wonder why the germans of 1918 is refused what the germans of 1945 did :

despite having lost long ago
keep on fighting until complete defeat​

and at the change 1918/1919 the germans were - comparativly - in a much better situation than the change 1944/1945.

You mean the Germans that at this time was abandoning their posts and refusing orders?

 

[DracoLazarus]

Only plebiscites were an adequate mean to legitimize border changes. However, I have to add, that despite the fact, that southern East Prussia was inhabited by Polish speaking people, these Masurians considered themselves as Germans, especially as they had a different culture than the Poles and a different faith, as they were/are protestants.

The exception being Alsace-Lorraine.
Germany didn't put a plebiscite in Alsace-Lorraine in 1871, there is no reason to put one there in 1918. Especially since the Germans were ready to abandon it.

 

[NoMommsen]

You mean the Germans that at this time was abandoning their posts and refusing orders?

... already subtracted ... still 4 mollion plus soldiers left ...

 

[GDIS Pathe]

I assume he talks about these more than 4 million soldiers that had to be demobilized in their home garrisons from 1918 until about 1921, comming from the west as well as until 1921 from the east, where german soldiers had to keep on fighting against the soviets on the Entente's demand.

Only, that in case the Entente would keep on marching aka invading Germany, these soldiers would now :

• fight ON home ground
• fight FOR home ground
  • like preventing their women and daughters getting raped by these negro hordes the french bring in from some jungles ... or other very likely propaganda
• are aside from perhaps the most heavy weapons fully armed (though admitted very low on ammo)
• would quickly call their comrades back from the east

Well, ofc, against all these german stubborn insurgents you can turn all of central europe into a gas-poisend waste-land ... and then you would finally have reached your ultimate goal :

getting definitly rid of these ... germans.​

I often wonder why the germans of 1918 is refused what the germans of 1945 did :

despite having lost long ago
keep on fighting until complete defeat​

So against the Italians, Romanians, Greeks and Serbs from the Balkans and against the Americans, French, and Brits in the West when every division is needed on the Western front when the Italians are advancing to Vienna and Innsbruck threatening Bavaria which will require troops to plug. The Romanians will be advancing through Hungary and threaten Silesia and this is all the while the German army in the West is disentergrating wholesale also let’s add in starvation muntiny and allied armour and overwhelming advantage in men and firepower. Germany loses she has no allies and enemies on every side.

Ans the German general staff also agreed that the war had been lost

Indeed. In 1944 the US Army got a bloody nose, when they tried to invade German proper. The way to the German border had been fast, after they had finally broken the lines at the Normandy. When they attacked in the Hürtgen forest, they failed. The invasion of Germany could only happen in 1945, after there were more forces and after the Germans had spent much of their forces in the Ardennes offensive. Here the German army is not in the state of the Wehrmacht of 1944/45. A continuation of the war would be extremely bloody and costly. Too bloody and costly. The Entente powers knew that.

IMO the best move would have been to call the bluff and not sign Versailles. As I am the opinion, the Entente powers would not have been able to fight a war against Germany longer. The morale would have been too low. For what should GI Joe die?

Ah yes because the US army has not the morale or will to fight a prolonged campaign and the German interments starving and facing threats along virtually the German border from AL to Silesia will beat the Entente who hold the advantage in the air sea and land. Never mind the French or the British or the Italians. Also so you seriously believe that Versaille was a stab in the back? The brave German army defeated by her politicians hmm?

 

[Tanc49]

I think the problem is with the first line and the section in bold.

No ones ever going to be on the losing end of the war and treaty and be fine with it, it's an impossible threshold to set. More relevant to this debate, there's certainly no treaty that Hitler et al will be fine with it and not scream about being humiliating betrayal of Germany denying it's true position etc, etc.

As to the last bit that's only a factor if you think you're are going to lose, and Hitler certainly wasn't talking about losing much. Put it this way as bad as the situation Germany found itself in 1929-33, was it worse than the position it found itself in 1944-45?

We can actually make an interesting parallel with 1871 France.
A-L was a chief concern for France but revanchism was less "actionable" then and wouldn't have started a war on its own.
However, it might be because France found another outlet for its wounded glory and went on to conquer half of Africa.
It'd be interesting to speculate what France would have done if it had not gone a-conquerin'?

 

[Anchises]

Yes there was something wrong without hindsight. The USA was clearly not going to maintain a large standing army in Europe to enforce some treaty. And the British were quickly reverting to the pattern of "very large navy, colonial army plus a couple good corp". So Wilson should have known that his ideas would not be enforced over the long run by US troops. The UK should have know that like the post-Napoleonic era, it would need a group of reasonably happy nations and a workable balance of power. France should have know that it would have to enforce harsh terms on its own, if that was the path. And everyone knew the Soviets would be an issue, and that is why you see things like Joint USA/Japan operations in the Russian Far East.

And if you start here, you can get a better treaty. Obviously A-L goes back to France but nothing else. The reparations were too high. Keynes told the British as their chief adviser. Or you could have know that by the way it was calculated. Instead of using actual economic destruction in the war, the French also added the lost future productivity of wounded and killed Frenchmen. So pretty easy to get a smaller reparations. Also easy to understand the Germans can't pay in gold, so it is a small step to have the reparations in terms of coal, ships and other industrial goods. For example, the exporting of coal from the Saar would have been reasonable reparations when combined with the 'value' of the colonies. UK can still get the Navy plus some limited gold payments or goods transfers (dyes, chemicals, etc). Italy is out of luck since A-H fell, but there was not real reason to make Italy unhappy. Give Italy what it can hold in the Adriatic and some meaningful colonial concessions. Why not give Italy something like German East Africa. Or if not that, give Italy Tunisia, Give France something from the UK or Germany, and the UK can keep East Africa. A good old colonial swap.

So with just a few changes, we can get a basis of a treaty that will not wreck the European economy any more than the war did. Italy does not feel betrayed. Justified feeling IMO. Now we just have one more big issues, what to do with Russia. Obviously, no combination of Entente are going to conquer and hold Russia. Obviously socialism is a biggest remaining threat. So either France maintains a large army for the rest of time, or they need allies. These allies have to be A-H or Germany. A-H implodes, and I doubt you can put it back together by 6 months after the war, so we need Germany as a counter weight. This means limiting German losses in the east and/or allowing a merger with Austria.

It is not hard to get to the logic of a workable treaty. One really has to understand that if the treaty is harsh, then France alone has to contain the Soviets and potentially any nation the Soviets flip to their allies. So it is pretty easy to see where the treaty needs to go. We act like this is impossible, but after the Napoleonic wars, the terms on the French were actually quite mild. After the war between Prussia and Austria, the terms were mild. Same for the Crimean war. And even the terms for the Franco-Prussian war were mild compared to the ToV. It is just the pattern that existed for a few hundred years was broken, and the risk was realized in the maximum possible way with Hitler.

This, people act like it took 20/20 hindsight to see that the treaty was broken. Any half-competent statesman should have known it in 1919.

The Bolsheviki showed their true colors when they murdered the Tsar and his kids. France itself was in a bad shape, Britain really struggled immediately after the war so it doesn't take that much logical thinking to see that Germany needs a half-decent economy and decent security forces to not crumble away.

Also it is not impossible to revise the treaty. After all the instability of 1923 it was fairly obvious that 100.000 men weren't enough, not even for internal security. The stubborn desire to keep Germany weak really aided the far-right and its structures. Even the SocDems were reliant on hard-right muscle.

Most of the structural problems could have been seen in 1918/1919 or in 1923, where they could have been rectified early enough to avoid the worst.

Its a miracle that the inter-war geopolitical situation remained "stable" as long as it did. Italy could have gone Red, Germany could have gone Red, Austria could have gone Red and Hungary could have gone Red. The Soviets could have conquered Poland and I don't see the Baltic States as independent nations for much longer if Poland is gone and the Allies don't intervene.

9.5/10 times the post ToV Europe is going to end up in a bloody messes up chaos.

 

[BlondieBC]

This, people act like it took 20/20 hindsight to see that the treaty was broken. Any half-competent statesman should have known it in 1919.

The Bolsheviki showed their true colors when they murdered the Tsar and his kids. France itself was in a bad shape, Britain really struggled immediately after the war so it doesn't take that much logical thinking to see that Germany needs a half-decent economy and decent security forces to not crumble away.

Also it is not impossible to revise the treaty. After all the instability of 1923 it was fairly obvious that 100.000 men weren't enough, not even for internal security. The stubborn desire to keep Germany weak really aided the far-right and its structures. Even the SocDems were reliant on hard-right muscle.

Most of the structural problems could have been seen in 1918/1919 or in 1923, where they could have been rectified early enough to avoid the worst.

Its a miracle that the inter-war geopolitical situation remained "stable" as long as it did. Italy could have gone Red, Germany could have gone Red, Austria could have gone Red and Hungary could have gone Red. The Soviets could have conquered Poland and I don't see the Baltic States as independent nations for much longer if Poland is gone and the Allies don't intervene.

9.5/10 times the post ToV Europe is going to end up in a bloody messes up chaos.

Out of curiosity, what do you think a good 1923 compromise number would be for the army?

I had not thought much about 1923, and a chance to fix the ToV. Plenty of time to see the dangers of the Soviet Union. If we simply suspended all but symbolic reparations at this point and time, then Germany might well slide toward satisfaction. And maybe allow a few things like Danzig to rejoin Germany, symbolic remilitarization of the Rhine, and remove opposition to unification with Austria. Probably too late for the vote to pass in Austria, but removing the opposition should have a good effect. And it would not be unreasonable to allow the Germans a 2 or a 3 in the Washington Naval Treaty.

 

[Tyr Anazasi]

So against the Italians, Romanians, Greeks and Serbs from the Balkans and against the Americans, French, and Brits in the West when every division is needed on the Western front when the Italians are advancing to Vienna and Innsbruck threatening Bavaria which will require troops to plug. The Romanians will be advancing through Hungary and threaten Silesia and this is all the while the German army in the West is disentergrating wholesale also let’s add in starvation muntiny and allied armour and overwhelming advantage in men and firepower. Germany loses she has no allies and enemies on every side.

Ans the German general staff also agreed that the war had been lost




Ah yes because the US army has not the morale or will to fight a prolonged campaign and the German interments starving and facing threats along virtually the German border from AL to Silesia will beat the Entente who hold the advantage in the air sea and land. Never mind the French or the British or the Italians. Also so you seriously believe that Versaille was a stab in the back? The brave German army defeated by her politicians hmm?

Would the Italians fight for France? Italy, who felt betrayed? From the Balcan nations not to speak. And Britain and France were in the ropes. Would the US want to continue to pay for this, when they could get more out of a peace? Would the soldiers carry on fighting and dying?

 

[toolbox11742]

Would the Italians fight for France? Italy, who felt betrayed? From the Balcan nations not to speak. And Britain and France were in the ropes. Would the US want to continue to pay for this, when they could get more out of a peace? Would the soldiers carry on fighting and dying?

I believe Italy's feelings of betrayal didn't originate until after they came up short of their war aims at Versailles.

Truth be told; following their collapse at Caparetto in 1917 the French and British sent 10 divisions to Italy to reform their defensive lines. I am not aware between that point, and the opening of Versailles negotiations, of Italy generating any major points of ill will towards France

 

[Knightmare]

I believe Italy's feelings of betrayal didn't originate until after they came up short of their war aims at Versailles.

Given their aims were pretty unrealistic, given their track record, they can't really bitch all that much.

Out of curiosity, what do you think a good 1923 compromise number would be for the army?

Problem is, you need to balance internal German security, with France freaking out over any growth, as well as some very well justified fears from Germany that Poland might be keen on taking some more German clay or Russia coming in for Socialism.

So maybe..... 250K?

 

[Anchises]

Out of curiosity, what do you think a good 1923 compromise number would be for the army?

I had not thought much about 1923, and a chance to fix the ToV. Plenty of time to see the dangers of the Soviet Union. If we simply suspended all but symbolic reparations at this point and time, then Germany might well slide toward satisfaction. And maybe allow a few things like Danzig to rejoin Germany, symbolic remilitarization of the Rhine, and remove opposition to unification with Austria. Probably too late for the vote to pass in Austria, but removing the opposition should have a good effect. And it would not be unreasonable to allow the Germans a 2 or a 3 in the Washington Naval Treaty.

350k-500k would be a good number. Basically enough soldiers to ensure that a lot of democratically minded recruits can flow in.

IOTL the Reichswehr was a political monoculture. The treaty provisions basically ensured, that the only soldiers would be reactionary or nationalist long-term soldiers. The small size also made it necessary that the Reichswehr was augmented by illegal hard-right paramilitary groups. Schwarze Reichswehr, Freikorps, Stahlhelm etc. Even the SocDems were forced to cooperate with the Freikorps because the Reichswehr was so inadequate, otherwise the communists uprisings might have succeded.

 

[toolbox11742]

350k-500k would be a good number. Basically enough soldiers to ensure that a lot of democratically minded recruits can flow in.

IOTL the Reichswehr was a political monoculture. The treaty provisions basically ensured, that the only soldiers would be reactionary or nationalist long-term soldiers. The small size also made it necessary that the Reichswehr was augmented by illegal hard-right paramilitary groups. Schwarze Reichswehr, Freikorps, Stahlhelm etc. Even the SocDems were forced to cooperate with the Freikorps because the Reichswehr was so inadequate, otherwise the communists uprisings might have succeded.

Germany couldn't fund a 500k standing army in 1923. The SDP was also loath to spend any money on defense throughout the interwar period (there are some interesting editorials available from the late 20's showing intense public debate about spending the necessary funds to build the pocket battleships)

Even if the entente didn't impose size controls on the Reichswer it's very unlikely that it would have been bigger than it was in the interwar period (except perhaps retaining more (no more than 1-2k middle ranking officers) due to the inability to adequately fund it