How To Prevent The Narrative of Versailles Being Too Harsh From Spreading In Anglophone Countries?

[TDM]

Except the French had very clearly lost in 1871, and they didn't lose any overseas colonies, no limits on rebuilding their military, Land and Sea, and French Patents and Business assets were not confiscated.

I do understand the thinking behind this point but it goes to weird places when you follow it through in terms of acting on it and end results for Germany. Because it's basically arguing that in order to justify the ToV the Entente should have invaded Germany bringing a whole lot more death and destruction with them.

And since that invasion would no doubt have cost the entente more resources and lives, the resultant Treaty would therefore be harsher, but because the invasion would no doubt have caused more damage and losses for Germany they also be less well placed to pay that increased bill


I.e. By being restrained, by negotiating with an intact Germany after an armistice, by not bringing the war directly to Germany and dictating terms of over a burning Berlin the Entente's reward is what? The Stabbed in the back myth and claim the Treaty is too harsh because Berlin wasn't occupied/on fire/starving to death?

And even with 1871 Peace, Revanchism was very real.
Why would the German People feel any different than the French?

They wouldn't but asking this question is ignoring the reality of this. The ToV was not written with what the German people now or on the future would like. It's just not. The whole idea of a treaty being judged by what the losers like is frankly bizarre especially when victory had cost the winners so very much.


I think your point sums up one of the things I find odd about the debates on the ToV (and actually WW1 in general to an extant) in that it assumes Germany's is the only POV to be taken into account.

 

[DougM]

The problem is with WW2 tainting (understandably) the view if Germany you will forever have the rest if the world view Germany as evil because if the Nazi’s (once again understandably). As such most of the world looks back and views Germany as the evil country that started WW2. And this many modern people think they deserved the treaty as writen and the war guilt bit and such.
So this type of discusion is dificult.
The truth is Germany didnt do all that much worse then pretty much most countries had dune up to that point in history durring wars (look at Great Britain in the Boar Wars for example) And Germany was not much more responsable for starting the war then anyone else. Rusdia didnt nedd to stick its nose in and If Germany is zguilty for siding with its allie in a war why is France and GB not guilty for siding with Russiz? France and GB were no more forced into war then Germany was. they went it on the side of Russia and Beligism to protect them ftom Germany.. Germany went in on the side of A/H to protect it from Russia,,. But … Germany bad.
Add in that Germany WAS on French territory and you would have expected to have a more neutral treaty . But once again the history books are written by GB A country that was in a power strugle with Germany for dominance (and who cant seam to seperate Nazi Germany from Germany) and France and the rest who all were looking for a scape goat to make their citizens understand that the local polititians were rught to enter WW1 and we get the narrative up to this day that Germany was completely responsible for WW1 and thus we get this kind of discusion.

When looked at historicly considering what Germany actuly did conpared to what other countries had done and considering where the front line was etc the WW1 treaty WAS over harsh. it is not just some wack jobs who believe this. The problem isnt that some folks think it was overly harsh when it wasnt.. the oroblem is some folks (miost?) believe it WASNT overly harsh when it was…

Once again I am not justifying or white washing the things Germany did in WW1 in Belgium and elswhere. I am just pointing out that those things were not unusual for an invading army at the time. Look at other countries. GB in MANY places. The US in the Indian wars pretty much any power in taking over Colonies etc, And as for the blank check BS Germany supported A/H like France supported Rusdia and GB supported Beligism and France. So they ALL stuck their nose in where it didn't belong…. If Rusdia stays out we ger a smsll Bulkan War, If Germany stays out we get a LARGE bulksn War. If France stays out we get an Eastern Europe war. Without GB and the US we have no World War, It takes all of these counties sticking there nise into a war that they were not being directly attacked in to tirn it into the mess it ended up. But somehow it was (accirding yo western history books) Germany that caused it by backing its allie (the same way Russia, France , GB and the US backed there allies)

So good luck trying to sort this POD out…. My suggestion is just have more folks buy the story of Evil Germany being responsible for WW1 and everyone on the west being innocent and pure if motive, lock stock and barrel so no one questions the treaty.
But i dont think that is possible as the War was an absolute convoluted mess of motivations (most of which the countries try to hide) and actions and frankly was a tangle with no clear good guy or bad guy, Everyone had goid motives and bad motives and with view exceptions no country was 100 the bad guy and no one was 100 the good guy. This war is more like a family fued the dedper and farther back you look the more it gets harder to see who started ut and why,
This is mot like Desert Storm where Iraq clearly invaded a neighbor and folks gained up on Iraq. This was a mess of countries with alterior motives and various fears lashing out and or taking advantage of the opritunity .
You can pretty much make the case for every country (except Belgium) for why they should get in the war , why they shouldnt get in the war, why they HAD to get in the war, why they are not responsible forvgetting in the war and why they ARE responsible for getting inbthe war and why they are responsible gor the war spreading and how they are both innocent victim and guilty party.
The war is an absolute mess with nothing ever being absolute. So a century later when we try and simplfy it, we gave a tendency to make our sde/country look innocent and good and the other side as evil/gulty. And turn the most complicated war in history into a 5 second story of good vs evil. But the truth is much much more complicated and frankly everyone was responsible for that mess with extremely few exceptions. but that is not the way propaganda and most history teachers teach it.
The to harsh narrative is just part of that.

 

[DracoLazarus]

One of the things I will repeat is that anyone who claims that Versailles was too harsh have to remember that the only damage that Germany proper took was its own economic mismanagement and starvation.
In comparison, a lot of France and Belgium's most productive lands were looted and heavily damaged.
As such, reparations were not just about the cost of the war itself, but also, and mostly, the cost of repairing the actual damage.
However, the way the reparations were imposed was unenforceable, and when France tried to enforce it anyway, the British and Americans backstabbed her.
The absurd amount of the reparations, even if it was justified, was an easy target. Add to that the war guilt cause, and, well...
It would have been easier to simply transfer all the debts of the warring powers, including Tsarist Russia, to the Central Powers and create a League of Nations administration for said debt, in such manner that the French and Belgians may be able to rebuild their homelands without having to bear the burden of war debt barely alleviated by reparations the Germans are deliberately sabotaging themselves in order to not have to pay.

 

[kholieken]

The problem is with WW2 tainting (understandably) the view if Germany you will forever have the rest if the world view Germany as evil because if the Nazi’s (once again understandably). As such most of the world looks back and views Germany as the evil country that started WW2. And this many modern people think they deserved the treaty as writen and the war guilt bit and such.
So this type of discusion is dificult.
The truth is Germany didnt do all that much worse then pretty much most countries had dune up to that point in history durring wars (look at Great Britain in the Boar Wars for example) And Germany was not much more responsable for starting the war then anyone else. Rusdia didnt nedd to stick its nose in and If Germany is zguilty for siding with its allie in a war why is France and GB not guilty for siding with Russiz? France and GB were no more forced into war then Germany was. they went it on the side of Russia and Beligism to protect them ftom Germany.. Germany went in on the side of A/H to protect it from Russia,,. But … Germany bad.
Add in that Germany WAS on French territory and you would have expected to have a more neutral treaty . But once again the history books are written by GB A country that was in a power strugle with Germany for dominance (and who cant seam to seperate Nazi Germany from Germany) and France and the rest who all were looking for a scape goat to make their citizens understand that the local polititians were rught to enter WW1 and we get the narrative up to this day that Germany was completely responsible for WW1 and thus we get this kind of discusion.

When looked at historicly considering what Germany actuly did conpared to what other countries had done and considering where the front line was etc the WW1 treaty WAS over harsh. it is not just some wack jobs who believe this. The problem isnt that some folks think it was overly harsh when it wasnt.. the oroblem is some folks (miost?) believe it WASNT overly harsh when it was…

Once again I am not justifying or white washing the things Germany did in WW1 in Belgium and elswhere. I am just pointing out that those things were not unusual for an invading army at the time. Look at other countries. GB in MANY places. The US in the Indian wars pretty much any power in taking over Colonies etc, And as for the blank check BS Germany supported A/H like France supported Rusdia and GB supported Beligism and France. So they ALL stuck their nose in where it didn't belong…. If Rusdia stays out we ger a smsll Bulkan War, If Germany stays out we get a LARGE bulksn War. If France stays out we get an Eastern Europe war. Without GB and the US we have no World War, It takes all of these counties sticking there nise into a war that they were not being directly attacked in to tirn it into the mess it ended up. But somehow it was (accirding yo western history books) Germany that caused it by backing its allie (the same way Russia, France , GB and the US backed there allies)

So good luck trying to sort this POD out…. My suggestion is just have more folks buy the story of Evil Germany being responsible for WW1 and everyone on the west being innocent and pure if motive, lock stock and barrel so no one questions the treaty.
But i dont think that is possible as the War was an absolute convoluted mess of motivations (most of which the countries try to hide) and actions and frankly was a tangle with no clear good guy or bad guy, Everyone had goid motives and bad motives and with view exceptions no country was 100 the bad guy and no one was 100 the good guy. This war is more like a family fued the dedper and farther back you look the more it gets harder to see who started ut and why,
This is mot like Desert Storm where Iraq clearly invaded a neighbor and folks gained up on Iraq. This was a mess of countries with alterior motives and various fears lashing out and or taking advantage of the opritunity .
You can pretty much make the case for every country (except Belgium) for why they should get in the war , why they shouldnt get in the war, why they HAD to get in the war, why they are not responsible forvgetting in the war and why they ARE responsible for getting inbthe war and why they are responsible gor the war spreading and how they are both innocent victim and guilty party.
The war is an absolute mess with nothing ever being absolute. So a century later when we try and simplfy it, we gave a tendency to make our sde/country look innocent and good and the other side as evil/gulty. And turn the most complicated war in history into a 5 second story of good vs evil. But the truth is much much more complicated and frankly everyone was responsible for that mess with extremely few exceptions. but that is not the way propaganda and most history teachers teach it.
The to harsh narrative is just part of that.

These is silly nonsense. Where the front is located had no importance when its Germany who are defeated. If war go to German soil ,then there would be more casualties, and treaties would be harsher like @TDM said.

As for war guilt/who started war question. Why would it matter ? If Germany didn't behave worse than Entente, then Entente imposition of Versailes also no worse than FP War in 1870s.

Germany go to war, they lost, they didn't treated worse than previous war.

 

[DracoLazarus]

These is silly nonsense. Where the front is located had no importance when its Germany who are defeated. If war go to German soil ,then there would be more casualties, and treaties would be harsher like @TDM said.

As for war guilt/who started war question. Why would it matter ? If Germany didn't behave worse than Entente, then Entente imposition of Versailes also no worse than FP War in 1870s.

Germany go to war, they lost, they didn't treated worse than previous war.

That, and compared to Brest-Litovsk, Versailles's territorial terms were awfully lenient.

 

[AltoRegnant]

The problem is with WW2 tainting (understandably) the view if Germany you will forever have the rest if the world view Germany as evil because if the Nazi’s (once again understandably). As such most of the world looks back and views Germany as the evil country that started WW2. And this many modern people think they deserved the treaty as writen and the war guilt bit and such.
So this type of discusion is dificult.
The truth is Germany didnt do all that much worse then pretty much most countries had dune up to that point in history durring wars (look at Great Britain in the Boar Wars for example) And Germany was not much more responsable for starting the war then anyone else. Rusdia didnt nedd to stick its nose in and If Germany is zguilty for siding with its allie in a war why is France and GB not guilty for siding with Russiz? France and GB were no more forced into war then Germany was. they went it on the side of Russia and Beligism to protect them ftom Germany.. Germany went in on the side of A/H to protect it from Russia,,. But … Germany bad.
Add in that Germany WAS on French territory and you would have expected to have a more neutral treaty . But once again the history books are written by GB A country that was in a power strugle with Germany for dominance (and who cant seam to seperate Nazi Germany from Germany) and France and the rest who all were looking for a scape goat to make their citizens understand that the local polititians were rught to enter WW1 and we get the narrative up to this day that Germany was completely responsible for WW1 and thus we get this kind of discusion.

When looked at historicly considering what Germany actuly did conpared to what other countries had done and considering where the front line was etc the WW1 treaty WAS over harsh. it is not just some wack jobs who believe this. The problem isnt that some folks think it was overly harsh when it wasnt.. the oroblem is some folks (miost?) believe it WASNT overly harsh when it was…

Once again I am not justifying or white washing the things Germany did in WW1 in Belgium and elswhere. I am just pointing out that those things were not unusual for an invading army at the time. Look at other countries. GB in MANY places. The US in the Indian wars pretty much any power in taking over Colonies etc, And as for the blank check BS Germany supported A/H like France supported Rusdia and GB supported Beligism and France. So they ALL stuck their nose in where it didn't belong…. If Rusdia stays out we ger a smsll Bulkan War, If Germany stays out we get a LARGE bulksn War. If France stays out we get an Eastern Europe war. Without GB and the US we have no World War, It takes all of these counties sticking there nise into a war that they were not being directly attacked in to tirn it into the mess it ended up. But somehow it was (accirding yo western history books) Germany that caused it by backing its allie (the same way Russia, France , GB and the US backed there allies)

So good luck trying to sort this POD out…. My suggestion is just have more folks buy the story of Evil Germany being responsible for WW1 and everyone on the west being innocent and pure if motive, lock stock and barrel so no one questions the treaty.
But i dont think that is possible as the War was an absolute convoluted mess of motivations (most of which the countries try to hide) and actions and frankly was a tangle with no clear good guy or bad guy, Everyone had goid motives and bad motives and with view exceptions no country was 100 the bad guy and no one was 100 the good guy. This war is more like a family fued the dedper and farther back you look the more it gets harder to see who started ut and why,
This is mot like Desert Storm where Iraq clearly invaded a neighbor and folks gained up on Iraq. This was a mess of countries with alterior motives and various fears lashing out and or taking advantage of the opritunity .
You can pretty much make the case for every country (except Belgium) for why they should get in the war , why they shouldnt get in the war, why they HAD to get in the war, why they are not responsible forvgetting in the war and why they ARE responsible for getting inbthe war and why they are responsible gor the war spreading and how they are both innocent victim and guilty party.
The war is an absolute mess with nothing ever being absolute. So a century later when we try and simplfy it, we gave a tendency to make our sde/country look innocent and good and the other side as evil/gulty. And turn the most complicated war in history into a 5 second story of good vs evil. But the truth is much much more complicated and frankly everyone was responsible for that mess with extremely few exceptions. but that is not the way propaganda and most history teachers teach it.
The to harsh narrative is just part of that.

The thing is though, we're not talking about post ww2 views of the central powers and kaiserreich, but about the interwar years themselves and how Britain felt the treaty was too harsh, so they didn't enforce it, which let germany ignore it and start ww2.

 

[NedStark]

That would make the war-weariness even worse, hence will to enforce even weaker.

However, that would have given France an opportunity to try their own equivalent of OTL Morgenthau Plan. Oh, and partition of Germany is now on the table.

 

[Garrison]

Well it *was* too harsh, it even led directly to round two.

This is also a myth that needs to die. By 1939 pretty much all of the most onerous provisions of Versailles had been rolled back. WWII happened because Hitler had been intent on war since he wrote Mein Kampf. His primary motivations were revenge against the French for having the temerity to beat German and then treat them as losing the war and conquest of territories in the east that had never been part of Germany. The Nazis rise to power in 1933 happened because of the drift towards extremist parties in the wake of the Great Depression and catastrophic deflationary policies adopted by the Weimar governments in response. The Communists also saw a large rise in support, which spooked conservatives and business leaders into trying the co-opt the Nazis, with disastrous results. The war started in 1939 because Hitler knew that rearmament in Britain and France would overtake Germany's somewhere around 1940-41 and what advantages the Wehrmacht possessed would be overtaken. If the Entente had ripped up the Versailles Treaty in 1925 the odds are excellent that Hitler would still have come to power and plunged the world into war in 1939 regardless.

 

[NedStark]

Britain was also wedded to the idea of "balance of power" too much.

 

[AltoRegnant]

Britain was also wedded to the idea of "balance of power" too much.

Likely, though up to that point they generally had been much better about they way they judged the balance of power, but for some reason they thought Germany would be weakened enough without alsace and danzig for france to have a chance. Despite, ya know, neither of those territories being the major industrial hubs that allowed the kaiserreich to compete with all of Europe at once

 

[DracoLazarus]

Likely, though up to that point they generally had been much better about they way they judged the balance of power, but for some reason they thought Germany would be weakened enough without alsace and danzig for france to have a chance. Despite, ya know, neither of those territories being the major industrial hubs that allowed the kaiserreich to compete with all of Europe at once

Or France having been ravaged by the German invasion and retreat, and being industrially weaker in 1919 than 1914...

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

As this source is Anglosaxon, it proves that the idea that the Versailes treaty was flawed, was already there from the beginning. Something like the occupation of the Ruhr area, that lead to another ruining of the German Economy will only have strenghtened that feeling, and it did sow doubt about French intentions towards Germany. The image became that France wanted Germany destroyed and nothing else.

 

[Saci]

Germany should have dismanted the french armed forces in 1871, that way they wouldn't need to worry about the franco-russian alliance later.

 

[marathag]

Because it's basically arguing that in order to justify the ToV the Entente should have invaded Germany bringing a whole lot more death and destruction with them.

It would have been more straightforward than continuing the Food Blockade.

 

[Dagoth Ur]

Peace after the Franco-Prussian War was much more lenient than Versailles. France kept all its colonies (which also helped pay the reparations via exploitation of natives) while Germany lost all of its colonies. France didn't lose any land with French-majority population (though the people of Alsace-Lorraine do mostly seem to have wanted to remain part of France), Germany lost a good amount of land with German-majority population. France kept its military (Germany even fed the tens of thousands of prisoners they had captured), which Germany was forced to severely limit its military.

This is also a myth that needs to die. By 1939 pretty much all of the most onerous provisions of Versailles had been rolled back. WWII happened because Hitler had been intent on war since he wrote Mein Kampf. His primary motivations were revenge against the French for having the temerity to beat German and then treat them as losing the war and conquest of territories in the east that had never been part of Germany. The Nazis rise to power in 1933 happened because of the drift towards extremist parties in the wake of the Great Depression and catastrophic deflationary policies adopted by the Weimar governments in response. The Communists also saw a large rise in support, which spooked conservatives and business leaders into trying the co-opt the Nazis, with disastrous results. The war started in 1939 because Hitler knew that rearmament in Britain and France would overtake Germany's somewhere around 1940-41 and what advantages the Wehrmacht possessed would be overtaken. If the Entente had ripped up the Versailles Treaty in 1925 the odds are excellent that Hitler would still have come to power and plunged the world into war in 1939 regardless.

Stripping Germany of territories that are full of Germans contributed massively to the popularity of ethno nationalist parties, and the rise of the Nazis. Danzig's senate was controlled by democratically elected Nazis from 1933, clearly a symptom of the population's desire to reunite with Germany.
And Versailles certainly didn't help regarding the depression and rise of socialist and communist groups.

 

[TDM]

It would have been more straightforward than continuing the Food Blockade.

Not really, leaving aside the complexities of invading Germany, the entente would certainly have continued the food blockade as well the effects of which would have been exacerbated with by an invading Entente army and trying to maintain some kind of armed defence in their own territory

 

[DracoLazarus]

Peace after the Franco-Prussian War was much more lenient than Versailles. France kept all its colonies (which also helped pay the reparations via exploitation of natives) while Germany lost all of its colonies. France didn't lose any land with French-majority population (though the people of Alsace-Lorraine do mostly seem to have wanted to remain part of France), Germany lost a good amount of land with German-majority population. France kept its military (Germany even fed the tens of thousands of prisoners they had captured), which Germany was forced to severely limit its military.

Stripping Germany of territories that are full of Germans contributed massively to the popularity of ethno nationalist parties, and the rise of the Nazis. Danzig's senate was controlled by democratically elected Nazis from 1933, clearly a symptom of the population's desire to reunite with Germany.
And Versailles certainly didn't help regarding the depression and rise of socialist and communist groups.

Considering that France is not ethnonationalist, if the people wanted to stay part of France, the place was majority French.
The lands Germany lost, thus, were mostly majority French, majority Danish, or majority Polish. Not much was lost that was majority German.

 

[TDM]

Germany should have dismanted the french armed forces in 1871, that way they wouldn't need to worry about the franco-russian alliance later.

Well this is kind of the problem with that kind of clause, how to do you maintain it (I actually think there are other options than do nothing / invade)

That said we hear a lot of French Revanchism vs. German Revanchism and it being both sides of the same coin

and yet as of Sep 1914 France has somehow managed to keep it's burning revanchist desires in check and avoided invading Germany for 44 years until finally in Sep 1914 the dam broke and erm, Germany invaded France.

Germany managed 21 years

 

[AltoRegnant]

and yet as of Sep 1914 France has somehow managed to keep it's burning revanchist desires in check and avoid invading Germany for 44 years until finally in Sep1914 the dam broke and erm, Germany invaded France.

to be fair, france actually had an understanding of the power imbalance it would be up against. germany's idea of foreign policy after getting the southern states seems to be "how do we piss off everyone"

 

[AltoRegnant]

Peace after the Franco-Prussian War was much more lenient than Versailles. France kept all its colonies (which also helped pay the reparations via exploitation of natives) while Germany lost all of its colonies. France didn't lose any land with French-majority population (though the people of Alsace-Lorraine do mostly seem to have wanted to remain part of France), Germany lost a good amount of land with German-majority population. France kept its military (Germany even fed the tens of thousands of prisoners they had captured), which Germany was forced to severely limit its military.

The treaty of frankfurt was also working on a 6-month curb stomp that saw Paris captured, the government decapitated and was probably the last great victory of Otto von Bismarck. harsh for that context and harsh for world war are entirely different frameworks

Stripping Germany of territories that are full of Germans contributed massively to the popularity of ethno nationalist parties, and the rise of the Nazis. Danzig's senate was controlled by democratically elected Nazis from 1933, clearly a symptom of the population's desire to reunite with Germany.

thus, it was politically harsh but not harsh in a way that actually weakened the german empire

And Versailles certainly didn't help regarding the depression and rise of socialist and communist groups.

and Germany shirking the treaty at every chance didn't help the political insanitty the third republic was facing