Best and Worst possible Treaty of Versailles

[Zoidberg12]

I think there's been threads on threads on this before, but lets discuss again then.

What would be the best possible, realistic, version of the Treaty of Versailles?

What would be the worst possible, realistic, version of the Treaty?

At the moment, I have some ideas of what these treaty's might be like, but there still are some things I'm not sure about it terms of plausibility. For one thing Germany not being forced to repay reparations would obviously be in a better Treaty, but the France really wanted this, so I'd be interesting to see how a compromise would come about. As for worse, anything that would noticeably alter the balance of power I guess would lead to even more problems than OTL.

So what do you guys think?

Discuss.

 

[Dustin]

Have lower reparations spread out over a longer peiod of time.

-Don't assign war guilt to anyone, except maybe Serbia.

-No occupation of the Rhineland.

-Germany still loses Colonies.

-Army restrictions of 150,000

-Naval restrictions are a certain proportion of German ships to British ships.(Germany can have 1 battleship for every 5 Britain has for an example)

-Limited aircraft and Tanks.

-same concessions in the west, but Germany keeps West Prussia

-Have the US accept the treaty and join the LON

-Found the LON

-Let Austria keep a coast, Italy did almost nothing for the allies and shouldn't be rewarded. Otherwise split up Austria like OTL.

-Independent nations in former Ottoman territories.

A lot of this probably isn't too plausible but it's what I would have done.

 

[Zaius]

-same concessions in the west, but Germany keeps West Prussia

Why would this be better?

-Let Austria keep a coast, Italy did almost nothing for the allies and shouldn't be rewarded. Otherwise split up Austria like OTL.

Hmm. How much did post-WWI Austria rely on Trieste?

I also wouldn't underestimate Italy's contribution to the allied cause. It may not have caused any military breakthroughs, but it at least distracted A-H and deprived the central powers of a potential trading partner. Besides, many of the areas it received were actually populated by Italians.

 

[kung Zog]

Italy did their fair share against Austria and Germany. Sure, they weren't that successful but they pinned down enemy troops and died in heaps.

I think a key is to make Austria economical stable, for example by limit the repayments.

 

[Lalli]

Best case. I don't know how plausible this is.

Germany:

- Lose all its colonies. Elsass-Lothringen give to France but it gains autonomy. Polish territories give to Poland.

- Reparation, but much smaller than in OTL and longer payment time.

- Some limitation of army.

- Not occupation of Rheinland nor absolute prohibition of unification of Germany and Austria but for this has be licence of great powers.

Austro-Hungary

- Lose Polish territories for Poland.

- Italian territories for Italy.

- Forming independence Czech, Slovakia, Hungary (keeps all Hungarian territories), Austria, Slovenia and Croatia.

- Bosnia give to Serbia.

- Not foundation of Yugoslavia.

Bulgaria:

- Coast area on south for Greece.

Ottoman Empire:

- Creation of independence Arab nations.

- Independent Kurdish state.

Worst:

Germany:

- Border of France to Rhein.

- Dissolving of German Empire as few independence state.

- Schleswig-Holstein to Denmark.

- Schlesien and part of Pommerania and Western and Eastern Prussia for Poland.

- Large reparations for independence Prussia.

Austro-Hungary:

- Dissolving of empire.

- Large reparations for Austria.

Bulgaria:

- Bulgaria annexed by Yugoslavia. (I admit that is probably implausible.)

Ottoman Empire:

- Creation of independence Arab nations.

- Independent Kurdish state.

- Foundation of Jewish nation.

- Dividing of Anatolia.

 

[miguelrj]

-Don't assign war guilt to anyone, except maybe Serbia.

So the victors take the blame?!

 

[kung Zog]

Best case. I don't know how plausible this is.

Austro-Hungary
- Forming independence Czech, Slovakia, Hungary (keeps all Hungarian territories), Austria, Slovenia and Croatia.

- Bosnia give to Serbia.

- Not foundation of Yugoslavia.

Wouldn't the lack of Yugoslavia be a hotbed for border conflicts during the interwar. While Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a failed state in a numerous way, I wonder of a shattered Balkan is better. Italy might easily start to eat on a lonely Slovenia and the Croat-Serbian border in Bosnia is like made for a crisis. There might also be a lot of resentment within the Serbian elite claiming they get to little for their suffering during the war. The idea of a Greater Serbia might be even more appealing.

 

[Zaius]

And on an unrelated note, I've noticed that whenever such a thread pops up crowds of people seem to equate the Treaty of Versailles, which only dealt with Germany, with the entire post-WWI settlement.

 

[Tyr Anazasi]

In 1919 the German government asked the general staff, if a continuation of war would be possible after hearing the conditions. I think a worse Versailles would not have been accepted and the French would have faced a bloody guerilla war they would not be able to win. Also no side was really keen to invade Germany. Thus any harsher treaty in not possible. Also keep in mind Britain wanted to keep Germany still as balance to France.

However, a better treaty is not possible either as the French were going mad in their ideas.

 

[Vingilótë]

And on an unrelated note, I've noticed that whenever such a thread pops up crowds of people seem to equate the Treaty of Versailles, which only dealt with Germany, with the entire post-WWI settlement.

I think that for most members, Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria don't capture the same interest.

In 1919 the German government asked the general staff, if a continuation of war would be possible after hearing the conditions. I think a worse Versailles would not have been accepted and the French would have faced a bloody guerilla war they would not be able to win. Also no side was really keen to invade Germany. Thus any harsher treaty in not possible. Also keep in mind Britain wanted to keep Germany still as balance to France.

However, a better treaty is not possible either as the French were going mad in their ideas.

And also as a buffer to the USSR, it's worth mentioning.

 

[Faeelin]

Interesting that best seems to be "give Germany everything it wants."

 

[The Red]

As Machiavelli said, "men must either be caressed or else annihilated; they will revenge themselves for small injuries, but cannot do so for great ones; the injury therefore that we do to a man must be such that we need not fear his revenge." The original treaty humiliated and angered Germany but left them with the ability to take revenge in the future, and in some ways arguably improved their strategic position in the east. Thus the best treaty would either be one which broke Germany up altogether or one that bound it to the rest of the new Europe as it already was economically, so that vengeance become not only unattractive but unattainable. Both would prevent a Second World War but the former is the most attractive, as it has already been shown to have worked with the integration of Europe during the Cold War.

As for a worse treaty...I honestly can't think of how the original could have been worse.

 

[Romanos]

Only Versailles, right? (Not about Trianon, Sevres etc.)

Basically, the philosophy of the Treaty of Vienne should apply. The balance of power must be kept as best as possible and the defeated must stay a part of the international community as an equal member. It's either that, or go full pastoralization to ensure Germany will never threat the continent again, which is never going to happen because of the fear of communists. Thus:

-No or very low monetary reparations.
-Germany loses all colonies, but may get a concession in now British-held East Africa and/or Asia.
-Germany loses Elsass-Lorraine, West Prussia and Danish-majority areas.
-Referendums for the rest of Prussia, Schl.-Holstein and the rest of Prussia.
-Navy cut to at most 1/4 of the British navy.
-Army cut to at most 1/5-1/6 of the French army.
-Air Force cut to at most 1/3-1/4 of the French air force.

That's the best scenario for me. The next best option is either pastoralization or otl post-45. OTL we got the worst of both worlds.

Maybe more provisions, but I'm not sure. In any case, the security of European cannot and will not be assured by one peace treaty. Appropriate arrangements must be made for former Austro-Hungary, Poland etc.

 

[Mikestone8]

Interesting that best seems to be "give Germany everything it wants."

Well, the Treaty of Lausanne gave Turkey most of what it wanted, and that worked pretty well. Doesn't automatically guarantee that the same thing woiuld have worked for Germany, but it might well have.

 

[Cryptic]

In 1919 the German government asked the general staff, if a continuation of war would be possible after hearing the conditions. I think a worse Versailles would not have been accepted and the French would have faced a bloody guerilla war they would not be able to win. Also no side was really keen to invade Germany. Thus any harsher treaty in not possible. Also keep in mind Britain wanted to keep Germany still as balance to France.

Versailles?
What would be the worst possible, realistic, version of the Treaty?

As Tyr mentions in detail, I dont think the objective elements of the treaty could be made any worse.

Some subjective elements could, however be made worse. For example, what if the allies made all the historical demands, but also encouraged the development of as well as recognized and directly negotiated with regional break away groups? - the allied goal being to fragment Germany into statelets.

 

[Catspoke]

Reparations equal to what Germany was spending on Military in 1913 as a percentage of GNP for 30 years. This make sense as Germany is forceably disarmed and could handle spending that much perviously. After 30 years anybody old enough to be responsible for starting the mess is probably dead.

Territorial losses OTL for Germany were about as fair as can be expected from a defeated peace. A standard fair way of doing self determination votes might have helped Germany a bit in cases like Eupen-Malmedy.

 

[Faeelin]

Well, Germany was also supposed to pay for the damage it did when it unlawfully invaded Belgium and trashed Northern France.

 

[Vingilótë]

Reparations equal to what Germany was spending on Military in 1913 as a percentage of GNP for 30 years. This make sense as Germany is forceably disarmed and could handle spending that much perviously. After 30 years anybody old enough to be responsible for starting the mess is probably dead.

Territorial losses OTL for Germany were about as fair as can be expected from a defeated peace. A standard fair way of doing self determination votes might have helped Germany a bit in cases like Eupen-Malmedy.

Reparations were equal to half the gold which had been mined on Earth, ever, and was to paid as such, which makes me more than a little doubtful of said figure.

Territorial losses would be a little more convincing if self-determination hadn't been openly urinated on at every opportunity.

 

[Tyr Anazasi]

Another thing to consider: The disarmament clauses were officially there to make worldwide disarmament possible. In 1932 the Germans argued this way. Even the Austrian did so. The French did not agree...

 

[Catspoke]

Reparations were equal to half the gold which had been mined on Earth, ever, and was to paid as such, which makes me more than a little doubtful of said figure.

Territorial losses would be a little more convincing if self-determination hadn't been openly urinated on at every opportunity.

Yup, OTL reparations were unreasonable, However the Germans were stupid to do some of the demolitions to French mines and such on their way out in October 1918 when it was obvious to everyone that a peace offer was going to have to be made soon. That made it too easy for the hard liners to have their way.

Some reasonable attempts at self determination was made, compromises had to be made when it came to natural frontiers or jumbled populations and these were going to favor the winners.

But overall the Germans didn't do too bad OTL compared to the Hungarians lets say.

The best chance of an easier peace on Germany is if Germany would agree to an armistace at the end of July 1918 to early September 1918 when it was obvious to many that Germany was going to lose, but before the military defeat/revolution was complete, and so a more compromise peace was possible. This early armistace means Germany evacuates France without demolitions and gets more favorable terms that would allow her to continue to resist (or at least the apperance of being able to continue to resist) later if the Versailles terms were not acceptable.