AHC: Not as Harsh Treaty of Versallies

how could such a thing happen, and how would it effect the history of Europe and the world into the future?
 
If anything less harsh was signed, Entente leaders would have been tarred and fathered when they get back home.
 
By 1918 the allies are SERIOUSLY annoyed with Germany for a less punitave treaty you need the war to end in early 1915 ,as was envisaged or have a modern day Tallyrand negotionating for germany with all that implies
 
The War needs to finish a year or two earlier and has to have been less bloody so there isn't the same calls for the CP's to be heavily punished, perhaps the Dardenelles is a success leading to a collapse of A-H forcing Germany to seek peace earlier.
 
The War needs to finish a year or two earlier and has to have been less bloody so there isn't the same calls for the CP's to be heavily punished, perhaps the Dardenelles is a success leading to a collapse of A-H forcing Germany to seek peace earlier.



So, what would the treaty look like in such a situation?
 
After four years of war, German occupation including like in WWII forcible impression of the labor of the rest of Europe to make up for domestic German shortfalls, the wholesale destruction of French industrial areas in a deliberate process, the attempts as per the dismemberment of Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, and Russia to clearly aim for a Germany in control of a servile Europe, there's no "mild" peace that's possible. And given the wholesale dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire and the attempt to outright destroy the Turkish people in Sevres, German whining over Versailles was never convincing and seemed more a bullshit artist type thing than a genuine complaint. Not to mention the only somewhat less draconian Treaties of Trianon and St. Germain.
 
Let's not forget that the German destroyed railroad and what was left of industry and flooded coalmines as they retreated and sued for peace. By 1936 complete rebuilding was not over in some part of Belgium.
 
After four years of war, German occupation including like in WWII forcible impression of the labor of the rest of Europe to make up for domestic German shortfalls, the wholesale destruction of French industrial areas in a deliberate process, the attempts as per the dismemberment of Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, and Russia to clearly aim for a Germany in control of a servile Europe, there's no "mild" peace that's possible. And given the wholesale dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire and the attempt to outright destroy the Turkish people in Sevres, German whining over Versailles was never convincing and seemed more a bullshit artist type thing than a genuine complaint. Not to mention the only somewhat less draconian Treaties of Trianon and St. Germain.

The difference is that while Germans were exhausted by the end, the Turks saw most of their land already under entente occupation. The war in the West ended at best with Entente forces in Alsace.
 
The difference is that while Germans were exhausted by the end, the Turks saw most of their land already under entente occupation. The war in the West ended at best with Entente forces in Alsace.

The other difference is that the German army in 1918 had the sense to end the war before it degenerated into an armed mob, as opposed to fighting on stupidly to the bitter end as it did in 1945.
 

Abhakhazia

Banned
Probably have the Kaiser remain in charge during 1918 and 1919. The Entente really took advantage of the weak Weimar Republic
 
The other difference is that the German army in 1918 had the sense to end the war before it degenerated into an armed mob, as opposed to fighting on stupidly to the bitter end as it did in 1945.

That's true too. In so doing, the soldiers of 1918 preserved some semblage of Germany whereas the Ottoman Empire was completely destroyed and ultimately abolished.
 
Last edited:
The other difference is that the German army in 1918 had the sense to end the war before it degenerated into an armed mob, as opposed to fighting on stupidly to the bitter end as it did in 1945.


Actually, the German Army took the same attitude both times. They would have sued for peace in 1944 if they could.

Unfortunately for them, unlike in 1918 they were now firmly subordinate to the Civil Power - and he wouldn't hear of doing this.
 
Actually, the German Army took the same attitude both times. They would have sued for peace in 1944 if they could.

Unfortunately for them, unlike in 1918 they were now firmly subordinate to the Civil Power - and he wouldn't hear of doing this.

That they had to be destroyed on both ends of the Front argues otherwise, while that "Peace" the Valkyrie types wanted would merely have led to a new version of the Dolchstosslegende.
 
After four years of war, German occupation including like in WWII forcible impression of the labor of the rest of Europe to make up for domestic German shortfalls, the wholesale destruction of French industrial areas in a deliberate process, the attempts as per the dismemberment of Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, and Russia to clearly aim for a Germany in control of a servile Europe, there's no "mild" peace that's possible. And given the wholesale dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire and the attempt to outright destroy the Turkish people in Sevres, German whining over Versailles was never convincing and seemed more a bullshit artist type thing than a genuine complaint. Not to mention the only somewhat less draconian Treaties of Trianon and St. Germain.


Not that any of it really matters.

The problem about Versailles was not that it was unjust - how many peace treaties aren't in one way or another? - but that it required a degree of "policing" - troops on the Rhine, military interventions to enforce reparations payments, etc etc - which the war weary inhabitants of the victor countries would never be willing to do for any length of time.

Since, for the reasons you list above, a lenient peace was politically impossible, the virtually inevitable result was a "tough" peace which would then go unenforced. Enforcing it required more effort than anyone felt like making, so when the Germans complained of its injustice, there was a predisposition to believe them, since that provided an honourable excuse for not making the effort to enforce it. And the rest, of course, is history.

It's a lot like Southern complaints about the horrors of Reconstruction. These too varied from the exaggerated to the downright false, but once Northerners got tired of policing the South, it suited them to believe the Southern version, since doing so gave them an excuse to retreat - which was what they wanted to do.
 
how could such a thing happen, and how would it effect the history of Europe and the world into the future?

Maybe the Germans aren't as gratuitously destructive when they retreat from France and Belgium?

That would cut down on the reparations and generate some goodwill for them.

Alternatively, perhaps Anschluss is permitted in the name of self-determination? Perhaps there're more extreme military cuts in exchange, or this is spun as a triumph of democracy over Hapsburg despotism?
 
Top