Alternate Treaty of Versailles

Thomas1195

Banned
I want to continue the previous Versailles threads:

Here are some of my ideas, many would from a position of Britain:



Britain get Heligoland and Borkhum. North German coast to be demilitarized with forts abolished.

Kiel Canal to be abolished to strip away one channel for German naval units. Denmark get Northern Schlewig.

A-H to be balkanized like OTL.

France get A-L and establishes Saarland as a buffer state for 20 years.

Italy get back Fiume and some parts of Dalmatia.

Sponsoring the independent of Bavaria, or even a South German Confederation including Austria, although both were quite unfeasible. If success, we can strip the North, but treat the South well.

Limit on army increase to 200k with medium artillery allowed, other things same as OTL. But no military AND civilian aircraft (OTL German used civil aviation to maintain their skills).

Germany pay reparations, with an amount equal to physical and human damages in Belgium and North France. But the duration would be spread longer. Maybe the absolute amount could be discounted following the acquiring of patents.

After Communism in Germany defeated: Freikorps must be disbanded

Outside the treaty:
Meanwhile, we can spreading propaganda and do other things to exacerbate the remaining differences in ideology and religion in Germany (like separatism in Bavaria and Saxony; or Catholic vs Protestant), if they were small, try to make them as big as possible.

Another option could be press the 100 day offensive to land into Germany, just some westernmost provinces in A-L, Eupen... no need to dig deep. But this would weaken the stab in the back myth.
 
Last edited:
The Saar would be too small as a buffer state and it wouldn't be defensible. If France gets a buffer state, that buffer state must cover the whole Rhineland.
You could also, alternatively, dissolve the German Empire and have each individual state go independent.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The Saar would be too small as a buffer state and it wouldn't be defensible. If France gets a buffer state, that buffer state must cover the whole Rhineland.
You could also, alternatively, dissolve the German Empire and have each individual state go independent.
This would require taking Berlin and all of the Ruhr

I did mention about forming South Germany
 
This would require taking Berlin and all of the Ruhr

I did mention about forming South Germany
The problem is South Germany would have to construct an identity of its own. Like every state until there has. It's easier to keep a Bavaria independent than a confederation of Bavaria, Baden and Wurtemberg.
Dissolving the Empire does not require as much. If Germany becomes a republic, you can easily convince the Republicans to dissolve the Empire since it exists no longer) and then convince local nobles to declare independence based on that.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The problem is South Germany would have to construct an identity of its own. Like every state until there has. It's easier to keep a Bavaria independent than a confederation of Bavaria, Baden and Wurtemberg.
Dissolving the Empire does not require as much. If Germany becomes a republic, you can easily convince the Republicans to dissolve the Empire since it exists no longer) and then convince local nobles to declare independence based on that.
North German Federation (you must capture Berlin to break this entity) would eventually ''Anschluss'' these states if they were separated, especially Baden and Wurtenberg. And these rump states were too weak to create a buffer. A unified South Germany would be strong enough for a buffer, but weaker than France.
 
North German Federation (you must capture Berlin to break this entity) would eventually ''Anschluss'' these states if they were separated, especially Baden and Wurtenberg. And these rump states were too weak to create a buffer. A unified South Germany would be strong enough for a buffer, but weaker than France.
The thing is such Anschlusses would give the French time to prepare. Furthermore, if France also has its Rhenish buffer - which is easier and more interesting to uphold - Baden and Württemberg matter little. Bavaria perhaps more, but even then these are three diplomatic coups in a row, and Austria is unlikely to follow.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The thing is such Anschlusses would give the French time to prepare. Furthermore, if France also has its Rhenish buffer - which is easier and more interesting to uphold - Baden and Württemberg matter little. Bavaria perhaps more, but even then these are three diplomatic coups in a row, and Austria is unlikely to follow.
Agree. But forming a South Germany and make it an ally would make a balance of power in central Europe if possible, especially under Austria leadership.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
What about forcing losing countries to abolish their tariffs for British and French goods in Versailles?

However, after that, the British Conservatives could have a chance to demand Imperial Preference as an indirect reparation that Germany and Co could not avoid.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The Saar would be too small as a buffer state and it wouldn't be defensible. If France gets a buffer state, that buffer state must cover the whole Rhineland.
You could also, alternatively, dissolve the German Empire and have each individual state go independent.
Or you could give France the Saarland and give the rest of the Rhineland to Germany.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Or you could give France the Saarland and give the rest of the Rhineland to Germany.
Should we do anything with the Kiel Canal. It was a strategic asset of any German naval plans.

Next, Britain should take back Heligoland to make it a forward anti-sub base.
 
Well, to state the obvious, these terms are so bad for Germany that they're sure to be rejected. That's not to say that this can't be done, but there'll be political consequences once the British and French public find out that the politicians threw away a perfectly good armistice to try and shoot the moon. The real long-term problem is that IOTL the resolution in both countries that the terms of Versailles were fair and worth enforcing crumbled over a couple of years, in Britain especially. There might be some weird comedy of errors where Britain tries to hand Heligoland back, but want to assuage their own honor by making it a sale, but the Germans have no money, and we have some awkward back and forth over the matter for a while.

On the other hand, I remember somebody arguing a while back that the problem with Versailles wasn't the terms, but that it kept trying to justify itself in ways that were bullshit, like arguing that German disarmament was justified by the more global disarmament movement that was going on for a couple years after the war, and once the Entente gave up on that, they'd lost their argument for why Germany couldn't rearm. This settlement can't possibly be justified by anything other than vae victus, which is always consistent, at least. The question is whether it survives the internationalist pacifism that undergirded a lot of the 20's.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, to state the obvious, these terms are so bad for Germany that they're sure to be rejected. That's not to say that this can't be done, but there'll be political consequences once the British and French public find out that the politicians threw away a perfectly good armistice to try and shoot the moon. The real long-term problem is that IOTL the resolution in both countries that the terms of Versailles were fair and worth enforcing crumbled over a couple of years, in Britain especially. There might be some weird comedy of errors where Britain tries to hand Heligoland back, but want to assuage their own honor by making it a sale, but the Germans have no money, and we have some awkward back and forth over the matter for a while.

On the other hand, I remember somebody arguing a while back that the problem with Versailles wasn't the terms, but that it kept trying to justify itself in ways that were bullshit, like arguing that German disarmament was justified by the more global disarmament movement that was going on for a couple years after the war, and once the Entente gave up on that, they'd lost their argument for why Germany couldn't rearm. This settlement can't possibly be justified by anything other than vae victus, which is always consistent, at least. The question is whether it survives the internationalist pacifism that undergirded a lot of the 20's.
The terms above were lighter than OTL, as the amount of hard currency reparations would be lower (and could be diverted to Austria and Hungary) and no difference in territorial changes in the West compared to OTL. However, the biggest issue would be Poland, maybe the German lands going to Poland would exclude Polish corridor. Sudetteland could go to Austria, but Anschluss must be banned for at least 20 years.

However, reparations in patents would be even larger than OTL. In OTL, Krupp was saved from bankruptcy by British patent payment. My proposal would be let it insolvent and takeover it with a joke price. In this way, you would basically get all of its patents, techniques and secrets, as well as gaining the right to close it down reduce the size of the Essen complex.

Finally, forcing Germany to abolish it tariffs and also non-tariff barriers permanently would be an indirect form of reparation, and unlike currency reparations, German cannot evade this, especially if British Conservatives decide to impose Imperial Preference.
 
The terms above were lighter than OTL, as the amount of hard currency reparations would be lower (and could be diverted to Austria and Hungary) and no difference in territorial changes in the West compared to OTL. However, the biggest issue would be Poland, maybe the German lands going to Poland would exclude Polish corridor. Sudetteland could go to Austria, but Anschluss must be banned for at least 20 years.

However, reparations in patents would be even larger than OTL. In OTL, Krupp was saved from bankruptcy by British patent payment. My proposal would be let it insolvent and takeover it with a joke price. In this way, you would basically get all of its patents, techniques and secrets, as well as gaining the right to close it down reduce the size of the Essen complex.

Finally, forcing Germany to abolish it tariffs and also non-tariff barriers permanently would be an indirect form of reparation, and unlike currency reparations, German cannot evade this, especially if British Conservatives decide to impose Imperial Preference.

No, I think the "dissolve Germany" bit is a rather significant sticking point compared to OTL. On top of that, the trade provisions make reparations unpayable, since Germany won't be able to build up the necessary foreign reserves with which to pay, and there's no way to keep the Entente from putting up trade barriers to German exports like OTL. Looting more German patents only makes this worse. So this is at least as unworkable as the OTL treaty before you get to the South Germany business, which is definitely unacceptable.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
No, I think the "dissolve Germany" bit is a rather significant sticking point compared to OTL. On top of that, the trade provisions make reparations unpayable, since Germany won't be able to build up the necessary foreign reserves with which to pay, and there's no way to keep the Entente from putting up trade barriers to German exports like OTL. Looting more German patents only makes this worse. So this is at least as unworkable as the OTL treaty before you get to the South Germany business, which is definitely unacceptable.
Well, in case of Krupp, if it was insolvent, you can takeover it at a joke price, and this is legal, I repeat, legal. IOTL, Britain paid to save it. Takeover it would allow you to get more patents than OTL.

Besides, we can cut down the cash reparations by taking into account patents.

Regarding dissolving Germany, just try to sponsor and fund separatists and independence movements in the South as much as possible. I mean just trying to create Arab Spring in Germany, if fail (very likely), then do not press by force. If success, then bravo.
 
Well, in case of Krupp, if it was insolvent, you can takeover it at a joke price, and this is legal, I repeat, legal. IOTL, Britain paid to save it. Takeover it would allow you to get more patents than OTL.

Besides, we can cut down the cash reparations by taking into account patents.

This fixes their inability to export anything and build up gold reserves how?

Regarding dissolving Germany, just try to sponsor and fund separatists and independence movements in the South as much as possible. I mean just trying to create Arab Spring in Germany, if fail (very likely), then do not press by force. If success, then bravo.

That's pointless. Without using force, the separatists will be pilloried as tools of the Entente (which they are) and marginalized. With force, no Treaty. No Treaty, then another year or two of fighting, continued resistance afterwards, and you have to tell the voters why you weren't happy with the Treaty you had. Good going.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Germany would not be allowed to mine its own sea territory.

Their coastal fortresses must be razed to the ground.
 
To add to Post No. 1 - Luxembourg to be annexed by Belgium. It was a very small country with a lot of iron ore under it and a big steel industry.
 
Top