These OTL demands are in line with over two thousand years of rivalry between these nations and a continuous pattern of warfare every couple of generations.
That is more than a little overreach.
1. The Carolingian Empire would beg to differ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_Empire the areas of France and Germany were part of the same state and many of the nobles had important connections with each other that lasted for centuries.
2. Noble as high as the Electors of the Holy Roman Empire sided against the reigning Emperor/Empress with the French so the presentation of total war between two states is contentious.
3. Especially when considering some French Kings fought to become the HR Emperor and the Franco-Hapsburg alliance in the 7 years war, what Austria's actual position was in the Conference of Vienna prior to the Hundred Days and Napoleon III's foreign policy in regards to Austria.
As for the idea that the Netherlands would be less damaged that is simply ridiculous.
Do you not consider the Dutch Famine to be at the very least damaging?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_famine_of_1944–1945
It isn't happening TTL and I would argue a large amount of the vendetta would in fact be gone considering its proximity to when peace was actually achieve that it was far more impactful than the bombing of Rotterdam.
Plus the Netherlands was a secondary theatre ITTL.
By not falling so quickly and staying in the fight they are in the front line subject to Bombing for longer and the level of casualties is higher thus the anger and hatred only grows. The German bombing of Rotterdam which was the main beef still happens but in this timeline but this time it's not an isolated incident.
More than the Dutch famine? And as I mentioned above France was the primary theatre. The Netherlands would be a secondary one since the main was just a larger swing through Belgium which was achieved without crossing the water line.
The Idea that the Western Allies would not be out for blood is political naivety of the highest order and shows a complete lack of understanding of the social-political structure of the time.
There's a difference between saying no desire for vengeance and what I actually said.
With respect the war TTL hasn't gone the same way it did OTL so we shouldn't be really relying on the feelings from OTL.
snip
While they don't have OTL to compare to, without those OTL experiences would they be really making the same demands?
Having a permanent occupation and being entirely dependent on foreign powers for defence isn't a light weight peace. Especially when adding in how long it would take for Germans to be in positions of authority and the potential for reparations ITTL.
3 times within living memory Germany would have plunged Europe into war and without the larger threat of the cold war and the restraining influence of the USA. Germany would have been partitioned which was the European way of doing things as for the idea that a state would restrain itself at the peace conference for fear of upsetting the defeated party that is a very modern concept that runs counter to almost all of European history.
With respect the consequences of the Congress of Vienna were/are rather different to what you've been implying in your debate. For instance
France kept its pre-revolutionary borders and actually received territory back during the Congress and if not for the 100 days one of the Kings that Napoleon had stained would have remained in power. So frankly using the Congress as an example of a harsh imposed peace comparable to splitting up Germany frankly does not work when considering its provisions.
Fundamentally I think you're not so much interested in the actual details of history as much as trying to wild it like a hammer and in the case of how you're using the Congress it doesn't really work.
Not to mention there are my earlier points about Versailles and how that would be viewed TTL.
As Machiavelli wrote if you wound someone lightly they want revenge if you wound them grievously they don't. These demands are commonplace and were the accepted way of doing things.
With respect that was for dealing with internal dissent where Machiavelli also argued powerful people were more likely to forgive you for killing family members than taking away their property. It was written for the renaissance period when wars were between dynasties not nation state as seen with the Italian Wars. Such terms were never applied in those wars or the wars fought against the Ottoman Empire and even the Peace of Westphalia that you mention doesn't really have such terms as you're suggesting. The punishments there were not on the Holy Roman Empire as a state but on the power of the Emperor and their ability for force religious conformity.
At the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918, the Germans stripped the Russians of 34% of their populated area and partitioned the Russian Empire into 14 separate states however most of this never took place due to the treaty being annulled by the German defeat before they could be enacted.
But Russia was explicitly left as a surviving entity with most of its territory as opposed to your idea of competently destroying Germany as a nation state.