Simple enough. Rewrite the Treaty of Versailles in a way that prevents the subsequent troubles that led to Hitler's rise to power.
AHC: Versailles doesn't let Nazis rise to power
- Thread starter Duke Andrew of Dank
- Start date
In 1928, almost a decade after the Treaty of Versailles, the NSDAP got a miserable 2.6 percent of the vote in the Reichstag election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1928_German_federal_election This rather suggests that the Great Depression was a lot more important than the Treaty in Hitler's rise to power. (Yes, I know this is an oversimplification but it's still basically true IMO.)
Versailles had nothing to do with it, it was a propaganda point, nothing more. Unless you can somehow write a clause into the treaty to avert the Great Depression it's more or less impossible imo, eventually the allied political will would have ran out and Germany would have become resurgent.
The Treaty of Frankfurt had lighter reparations, did *not* mandate that parts of France be demilitarized, did not split parts of France off as puppet states (Saarland), did not split off other parts of France such as Brittany, did not split off cities into 'Free Cities', did not mandate intellectual property transfers, did not require that France give Germany most-favored-nation status while not offering anything in return, did not establish France as an effective pariah state that had lost all of its trade partnerships, did not establish that Germany had authority over Franco-Wallonian relations, nor did it establish Occitania as a new nation out of partially-French territory...
Comparing Frankfurt and Versailles isn't really very fair.
Versailles wasn't the cause, but it's disingenuous to say it wasn't a component.
I'd argue it was too lenient for what it proposed to do (prevent another war by holding Germany down), but way too harsh compared to the actual Allied will and ability to enforce it (mixed at best) in the interwar years. In particular, without an external ally to back their play, the French are left holding the bag; they can't enforce the treaty alone. Britain doesn't really want a harsh peace, and undermined the French line. The USA has no will for enforcement and fucks off at first opportunity.
This is the big difference between Versailles and the Treaty of Frankfurt; the German Empire set a uniform, focused set of terms and enforced them alone; at Versailles, a coalition of powers with divergent goals made a dog's breakfast of terms and demanded Germany eat it, without much in the way of will to enforce compliance. Even then, Stresemann's rapprochements in the '20s argues pretty firmly that it was the Depression more than anything that propelled the Nazis to power. But.
Taking the challenge at face value; what Versailles contributed to the Nazi rise to power was exiling Germany from the community of European nations, making it a revisionist state (thought not a Soviet-style pariah). And in an era of beggar-thy-neighbor economic policy, war is also a means of economic readjustment; territorial control means market access. Colonies are captive markets to their parent states, who are disinclined to permit competition (a primary motive for American anti-colonial sentiment before and during the war; to open new markets for American goods).
So to prevent some form of German resurgence you would need to reorder the economic realities of the interwar era in a way that the victors would accept, or at least dangle the hope of that reordering happening by peaceful means. Giving the League of Nations sharper teeth (military or economic) would displease the victor states that brought the League into being by threatening their bottom line (and in the face of the massive cost of the war, that's not tenable).
So let's try this; during the treaty negotiations, float the idea of a proto-EEC 'common market' among League member states, and tie Germany membership in the League to compliance with treaty restrictions. Germany has astute financiers; someone will sit down and figure out that it's possible for Germany to come to dominate this economic order as modern Germany dominates the EU. Throw in the restoration of the monarchy as a sop to nationalists, and it's possible that the combination of economic benefit tied to compliance + continuity of traditional authority would block any attempt at a Round Two.
I'd argue it was too lenient for what it proposed to do (prevent another war by holding Germany down), but way too harsh compared to the actual Allied will and ability to enforce it (mixed at best) in the interwar years. In particular, without an external ally to back their play, the French are left holding the bag; they can't enforce the treaty alone. Britain doesn't really want a harsh peace, and undermined the French line. The USA has no will for enforcement and fucks off at first opportunity.
This is the big difference between Versailles and the Treaty of Frankfurt; the German Empire set a uniform, focused set of terms and enforced them alone; at Versailles, a coalition of powers with divergent goals made a dog's breakfast of terms and demanded Germany eat it, without much in the way of will to enforce compliance. Even then, Stresemann's rapprochements in the '20s argues pretty firmly that it was the Depression more than anything that propelled the Nazis to power. But.
Taking the challenge at face value; what Versailles contributed to the Nazi rise to power was exiling Germany from the community of European nations, making it a revisionist state (thought not a Soviet-style pariah). And in an era of beggar-thy-neighbor economic policy, war is also a means of economic readjustment; territorial control means market access. Colonies are captive markets to their parent states, who are disinclined to permit competition (a primary motive for American anti-colonial sentiment before and during the war; to open new markets for American goods).
So to prevent some form of German resurgence you would need to reorder the economic realities of the interwar era in a way that the victors would accept, or at least dangle the hope of that reordering happening by peaceful means. Giving the League of Nations sharper teeth (military or economic) would displease the victor states that brought the League into being by threatening their bottom line (and in the face of the massive cost of the war, that's not tenable).
So let's try this; during the treaty negotiations, float the idea of a proto-EEC 'common market' among League member states, and tie Germany membership in the League to compliance with treaty restrictions. Germany has astute financiers; someone will sit down and figure out that it's possible for Germany to come to dominate this economic order as modern Germany dominates the EU. Throw in the restoration of the monarchy as a sop to nationalists, and it's possible that the combination of economic benefit tied to compliance + continuity of traditional authority would block any attempt at a Round Two.
As others have stated, the depression was likely the biggest factor in propelling the Nazi's themselves to power, and if that's all you're trying to do, then there's not a whole lot that altering Versailles can actually accomplish.
If the goal is to prevent German revanchism from becoming a major political force entirely, well, there may be some things you can do.
First off, as GOU said, enforcement is an issue. The Soviets are a pariah, the US has no interest in continuing to screw around in Europe, and Britain doesn't want a French dominated Europe any more than they want a German dominated one. That leaves France holding the bag, and Germany is simply a naturally more powerful state than France. They've got more population, more industry, a more central location and they're growing faster, both economically and demographically. Put bluntly, as long as France is the only one trying to hold Germany down, they're going to fail. It's as simple as that.
So, unless we magically give the other allies the will to enforce a super harsh treaty, how can we prevent Germany from coming up swinging? First things first, actually negotiate. That was how things were supposed to go. The winners and the losers would get together and negotiate peace. That's how the Napoleonic wars ended, that's how the Russo-Japanese war ended, that's how the Spanish-American war ended, that's how the Prussian wars of unification ended, that's the Italian wars of unification ended. Yes, the winners would have most of the say, but the losers would be allowed to present their case, offer trade-offs, and generally actually be treated like an equal. The failure of the Entente to even pretend to negotiate was a huge slap in the face to the central powers that really had no purpose other than insulting them.
Second, make a treaty that doesn't require you to enforce it into perpetuity. The Treaty of Frankfurt set out an indemnity and an occupation, and once that was done, that was it. France was still a fully sovereign country allowed to carry out its own affairs. Versailles mandated restrictions on the military, on industry, on trade, on foreign relations, on de-militarized zones, on everything under the sun, and this was supposed to go on forever. If you absolutely have to micro-manage every bit of their affairs, make them an actual vassal state and have France appointed puppet government running things. If you won't do that, then at least put a time limit on it, so it's like "be a good boy for ten years and you can have your country back". The way they set it up basically guaranteed another war because at some point the Germans were going to have enough of being told what they could and couldn't do inside their own borders and rise up so they could actually be a proper country again instead of having Paris run things.
Finally, and this is the big one, don't be a hypocrite. The allies tried to justify the treaties with morality. The liberation of peoples, defense of smaller nations, blah de blah blah. So when you violate the principles that you are supposedly trying to enforce with these treaties, you stoke a tremendous amount of anger, not only in the people your imposing these treaties on, but the neutrals can see through your BS as well.
One of my teachers said something about the aftermath of the war that's always stuck with me. Paraphrased, it went: No member of the former central powers joined the allies in the second world war, meanwhile several former entente members, most notably Italy, Japan, Romania and (temporarily) Russia, all joined the axis. That should tell you something about how badly they screwed up at the peace table.
If the goal is to prevent German revanchism from becoming a major political force entirely, well, there may be some things you can do.
First off, as GOU said, enforcement is an issue. The Soviets are a pariah, the US has no interest in continuing to screw around in Europe, and Britain doesn't want a French dominated Europe any more than they want a German dominated one. That leaves France holding the bag, and Germany is simply a naturally more powerful state than France. They've got more population, more industry, a more central location and they're growing faster, both economically and demographically. Put bluntly, as long as France is the only one trying to hold Germany down, they're going to fail. It's as simple as that.
So, unless we magically give the other allies the will to enforce a super harsh treaty, how can we prevent Germany from coming up swinging? First things first, actually negotiate. That was how things were supposed to go. The winners and the losers would get together and negotiate peace. That's how the Napoleonic wars ended, that's how the Russo-Japanese war ended, that's how the Spanish-American war ended, that's how the Prussian wars of unification ended, that's the Italian wars of unification ended. Yes, the winners would have most of the say, but the losers would be allowed to present their case, offer trade-offs, and generally actually be treated like an equal. The failure of the Entente to even pretend to negotiate was a huge slap in the face to the central powers that really had no purpose other than insulting them.
Second, make a treaty that doesn't require you to enforce it into perpetuity. The Treaty of Frankfurt set out an indemnity and an occupation, and once that was done, that was it. France was still a fully sovereign country allowed to carry out its own affairs. Versailles mandated restrictions on the military, on industry, on trade, on foreign relations, on de-militarized zones, on everything under the sun, and this was supposed to go on forever. If you absolutely have to micro-manage every bit of their affairs, make them an actual vassal state and have France appointed puppet government running things. If you won't do that, then at least put a time limit on it, so it's like "be a good boy for ten years and you can have your country back". The way they set it up basically guaranteed another war because at some point the Germans were going to have enough of being told what they could and couldn't do inside their own borders and rise up so they could actually be a proper country again instead of having Paris run things.
Finally, and this is the big one, don't be a hypocrite. The allies tried to justify the treaties with morality. The liberation of peoples, defense of smaller nations, blah de blah blah. So when you violate the principles that you are supposedly trying to enforce with these treaties, you stoke a tremendous amount of anger, not only in the people your imposing these treaties on, but the neutrals can see through your BS as well.
One of my teachers said something about the aftermath of the war that's always stuck with me. Paraphrased, it went: No member of the former central powers joined the allies in the second world war, meanwhile several former entente members, most notably Italy, Japan, Romania and (temporarily) Russia, all joined the axis. That should tell you something about how badly they screwed up at the peace table.
Turkey actually did join. But that was too late in the war to make a real difference.
Other than that. Your teacher actually made a VERY spot-on observation I personally never considered.
They "Declared war" for the same reason a lot of countries at the last minute, they wanted to have at least a little to say about things post-war. By the time they did so it would have taken a flock of ASBs for the Axis to win and everyone knew it. It is surprising how many neutral countries were suddenly willing to declare war of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan late 1944-mid 1945 isn't it?
Agreed, without help France is screwed.
True, also not having face to face talks wouldn't allow them to become humanized which is what Clemenseua wanted.
Yep, unless you are going to somehow enforce in perpetuity there is no way you are going to get them to do so. Once you are in no shape to enforce the treaty they are going to throw off all the restrictions they can.
IOW, if you are doing something that is guaranteed to create great resentment make sure you are powerful enough to handle the backlash. If you aren't powerful enough to do that make sure they have to have some way to get out of it eventually without violence.
Turkey joined at literally the eleventh hour, like a bunch of other minor nations, once the outcome was safely no longer in doubt.
FBKampfer
Banned
Of course it's not. But its lies like that that let people from Allied nations pretend that none of the ocean of blood was on their hands.
Short (blunt) answer you could enforce it!
Realistically of course that wasn't going to happen however.
And yes as mentioned the depression is a huge factor. But the reality is Hitler want's to change history, (he thinks Germany should have won WW1)
Come off it the Treaty of Frankfurt included the loss of Franch territory to Germany (Alsace-Lorraine) and required German Military presence on France soil until reparations were complete (this involved French demilitarisation of those areas of course)
Yes the Treaty of Frankfurt was 5bn Francs in 1871 paid over 5 years, ToV ended up being 21bn* marks over 23 years*, which yes in absolute terms is still more even if you take 50 years if inflation into account but...
Then there's the point about proportional scale and damage, the Franco Prussian war lasted less than year and in total was under 1m in dead, wounded, captured and interned on both sides. Do I really need to put up the WW1 numbers? Not forgetting the Germans had been camped and the war largely fought on roughly 25% of Frances territory for 4 years including a big chunk of its industry that was subsequently wrecked?
Also not forgetting that WW1 is the 2nd time Germany's invaded France in it's short 40 year life span,
Not the original figures true, but we already forgiving German debt by then because of the depression
Yeah because we forced Germany to first give AH cart Blanche and military support in the Balkans, and then go invade France though neutral Belgium.
Truly those who tried to get a political conference and mediation going in July 14 are the villains of the piece, and those who rejected the attempts are the real victims
Realistically of course that wasn't going to happen however.
And yes as mentioned the depression is a huge factor. But the reality is Hitler want's to change history, (he thinks Germany should have won WW1)
Come off it the Treaty of Frankfurt included the loss of Franch territory to Germany (Alsace-Lorraine) and required German Military presence on France soil until reparations were complete (this involved French demilitarisation of those areas of course)
Yes the Treaty of Frankfurt was 5bn Francs in 1871 paid over 5 years, ToV ended up being 21bn* marks over 23 years*, which yes in absolute terms is still more even if you take 50 years if inflation into account but...
Then there's the point about proportional scale and damage, the Franco Prussian war lasted less than year and in total was under 1m in dead, wounded, captured and interned on both sides. Do I really need to put up the WW1 numbers? Not forgetting the Germans had been camped and the war largely fought on roughly 25% of Frances territory for 4 years including a big chunk of its industry that was subsequently wrecked?
Also not forgetting that WW1 is the 2nd time Germany's invaded France in it's short 40 year life span,
Not the original figures true, but we already forgiving German debt by then because of the depression
Yeah because we forced Germany to first give AH cart Blanche and military support in the Balkans, and then go invade France though neutral Belgium.
Truly those who tried to get a political conference and mediation going in July 14 are the villains of the piece, and those who rejected the attempts are the real victims
Last edited:
ferdi254
Banned
The last time France tried to enforce something like an even worse ToV was in 1806ff. Basically making all of Germany a puppet state, paying for France troops in Germany 100%, regulating tariffs, production, making the armies march into Russia, running censorship on all media annexing large swaths of Germany outright. We know how this ended.
Do a harsher ToV in 1919 and how long would it take for the Germans to embrace Bolshewism and for the Soviet Union to realise that they have a perfect ally now? And how would that end 20 years later?
Do a harsher ToV in 1919 and how long would it take for the Germans to embrace Bolshewism and for the Soviet Union to realise that they have a perfect ally now? And how would that end 20 years later?
If I may add 2 additional points to your great post, Prussia did not demand the elimination of 100% of all French colonies and while France had no major allies in the Franco pussian war, separate treaty's made with Austria and the ottoman empire ensured that future conflics would see germany isolated by weakening it's allies to the point of irrelevance even beyond the point of ethnic determination (separating the Sudetenland/Tyrol from Austria and for a time at least attempting to colonize Turkish land)
Yep, which is kind of why France was so worried about them
well hang a lot of those things are not like each other (or like post WW1), German and Italian unification are internal wars with very different motivations and goals for post war negotiation for both sides
the negotiations at the end of the Napoleonic wars were actually pretty one sided "Cossacks watering their horses in the Seine" and all that (and check out the losses and indemnities).
Russo-Japanese war didn't end with the defeat of either side, same as Spanish and American war (I mean there were military defeats but neither losing side was invaded occupied etc)
and ultimately the big, big difference is WW1 is just a cataclysm of far greater scale than any of them (Napoleonic comes close at times I guess)
On top of that there's another huge issue for the entente (GB and France) we had pretty much not only crippled our economies, and in France's case has to rebuild the destruction of it's territory but we owe the US a huge amount of money. Where's that going to come from? And on top of that remember Germany while suffering huge casualties and about to starve in large numbers was internally and structurally pretty unscathed, and had won on the eastern front and gained from Brest-litov!
Only again a big difference in 1919 Germany has invaded France twice in it's short 50 year life span. I can forgive France for wanting to do it's best to ensure Germany can't do it again (even if there's no long term practical way to do so). Also some of the stuff cited was supposed to end when reparations ended (just like the Germany army left France after France paid it reparations after 1871).
I also pretty fundamentally disagree with you description of Germany post war being a country run by Paris.
Only those countries had their own reasons for doing what they did in WW2 as well as fundamental changes in their contexts that rather trump you teacher's conveniently neat summing up there
Anyway the more I read and learn about the ToV (and alleged knock on effects) the more I come to the opinion that there really wasn't any likely alternative. Any different options just pretty much end up being the same once everyone's issues at the time are addressed and the practical concerns for enforcing them* are looked at.
Don't get me wrong I've been on the "capricious and short sighted ToV causes WW2" side of this debate, but I haven't been for a while now
*let's take one, the demilitarised zones. Unlike Germany in France in 1871 France didn't actually want to leave a standing France army in Germany while reparations were paid. But it knew that if Germany didn't make it's reparations it might need to go in and take them. The thing is if it does that and the Germany army is sitting there well that's war right (or at the very best threat of large scale bloodshed and death). So the demilitarisation was a compromise between not doing anything and having no recourse if the reparations stopped coming and long term occupying the country. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying this was France being all lovely! They just didn't want to be fighting again in 5 years and the bad publicity of what occupation would have meant, but did want it's reparations. Actually this also touches on the points you made about preferred trade stasis and controls on German industry, those reparations were largely going to come in the form of materials not cash, and those were party the mechanism that would run it.
Last edited:
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Even with Versailles as written there are several PoDs between 1919 and 1933 that could butterfly the Nazis.
We made France pay for alliance troops staying in France in 1812 and 1815 and Germany made France do the same in 1871, i.e. it was pretty standard?
I mean you are right about 1806
Well that was certainly a fear at the time (it was one reason given for not marching in and occupying Germany*, there were others of course)! Thing is it kind of makes the point I made in my last post. There seems to be a perception Post WW2 that post WW1 and up to 1939 French & British politicians were all either bloodthirsty, short sighted idiots (at the start of the period), or cowardly short sighted idiots (at the end). But actually they were thinking about the stuff that gets brought up in threads like this.
*this itself raises a point. These comparisons to other wars and other victors and losers, and the ensuing aftermaths often forget that the entente didn't invade, trash and occupy Germany in 1918/19. A campaign that would have meant the death and destruction of a lot of Germans and Germany! Now obviously that wasn't just just for selfless being nice to Germany reasons! But it is huge impact the due to being missing seem to often get left out of these comparisons between ToV and "good/nice" Peace treaties.
Last edited:
Thing is that observation kind of ignores little things like:
Italy and Japan in 1939 being Imperialistic powers trying to carve out their places in the sun and getting push back from the LN, Italy sharing a political ideology with Germany.
Russia had some pretty significant changes 1914 - 1939 certainly in terms of it's relationship with France and GB.
Romania's changed position 1914 - 1939 is very dependent on the AH & Ottoman empires no longer existing
Turkey? In 1914 Turkey was the Ottoman empire, it's a very different place in 1939
(TBH a lot of these differences themselves kind of point to the fact that WW1 wasn't just another war)
Well I mean unless the point was the ToV cased all these changes as well, in which case yeah OK lets add Adam & Eve's expulsion from Eden and the fact I didn't get to shag a certain hot English student until I was in the 3rd year at uni!
Last edited: